Minimally invasive vs open pancreatoduodenectomy on oncological adequacy: a propensity score-matched analysis
- PMID: 35178590
- DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09111-2
Minimally invasive vs open pancreatoduodenectomy on oncological adequacy: a propensity score-matched analysis
Abstract
Background: The adoption of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has increased over the last decade. Most of the data on perioperative and oncological outcomes derives from single-center high-volume hospitals. The impact of MIPD on oncological outcomes in a multicenter setting is poorly understood.
Methods: The National Cancer Database was utilized to perform a propensity score matching analysis between MIPD vs open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). The primary outcomes were lymphadenectomy ≥ 15 nodes and surgical margins. Secondary outcomes were 90-day mortality, length of stay, and overall survival.
Results: A total of 10,246 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2016. Among these patients, 1739 underwent MIPD. A propensity score matching analysis with a 1:2 ratio showed that the rate of lymphadenectomy ≥ 15 nodes was significantly higher for MIPD compared to OPD, 68.4% vs 62.5% (P < .0001), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of positive margins, 90-day mortality, and overall survival. OPD was associated with an increased rate of length of stay > 10 days, 36.6% vs 33% for MIPD (P < .01). Trend analysis for the patients who underwent MIPD revealed that the rate of adequate lymphadenectomy increased during the study period, 73.1% between 2015 and 2016 vs 63.2% between 2010 and 2012 (P < .001). In addition, the rate of conversion to OPD decreased over time, 29.3% between 2010 and 2012 vs 20.2% between 2015 and 2016 (P < .001).
Conclusion: In this propensity score matching analysis, the MIPD approach was associated with a higher rate of adequate lymphadenectomy and a shorter length of stay compared to OPD. The surgical margins status, 90-day mortality, and overall survival were similar between the groups.
Keywords: Lymphadenectomy; Minimally invasive; Pancreatoduodenectomy; Propensity score matching.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Cameron JL, Riall TS, Coleman J, Belcher KA (2006) One thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. Ann Surg 244(1):10–15 - DOI
-
- Tol JA, Gouma DJ, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Montorsi M, Adham M et al (2014) Definition of a standard lymphadenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 156(3):591–600 - DOI
-
- Sood A, Meyer CP, Abdollah F, Sammon JD, Sun M, Lipsitz SR et al (2017) Minimally invasive surgery and its impact on 30-day postoperative complications, unplanned readmissions and mortality. Br J Surg 104(10):1372–1381 - DOI
-
- Xu T, Hutfless SM, Cooper MA, Zhou M, Massie AB, Makary MA (2015) Hospital cost implications of increased use of minimally invasive surgery. JAMA Surg 150(5):489–490 - DOI
-
- Spampinato MG, Coratti A, Bianco L, Caniglia F, Laurenzi A, Puleo F et al (2014) Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted major hepatectomies: an Italian multi-institutional comparative study. Surg Endosc 28(10):2973–2979 - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
