Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan 18;408(1):40.
doi: 10.1007/s00423-023-02752-4.

Laparoscopic versus open central pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single centre

Dujiang Yang #  1 , Mao Li #  1 , Zhenlu Li  1 , Ling Zhang  1 , Weiming Hu  1 , Nengwen Ke  1 , Junjie Xiong  2
Affiliations

Laparoscopic versus open central pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single centre

Dujiang Yang et al. Langenbecks Arch Surg. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Purpose: Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) has been implemented in pancreatic surgery; however, open surgery is still the predominant approach for central pancreatectomy (CP). Our objective was to compare LCP with open CP (OCP).

Methods: Data were collected from patients with tumours located in the pancreatic neck and proximal body who underwent CP in the Department of Pancreatic Surgery West China Hospital from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2019. A comparison between the LCP and OCP groups was performed.

Results: Fifteen patients underwent CP via the laparoscopic approach, and 96 patients underwent CP via the open approach. Using 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM), 12 patients in the LCP group were matched to 21 in the OCP group. Regarding safety, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was not significantly different between the two groups (13.3% vs. 12.5%, P = 1.000), even with PSM (16.7% vs. 14.3%, P = 1.000). However, regarding effectiveness, the operative time in the OCP group was significantly shorter than that in the LCP group before (307.0 ± 92.3 ml vs. 220.6 ± 63.6 ml, P < 0.000) and after (300.3 ± 90.2 ml vs. 212.7 ± 44.4 ml, P = 0.002) PSM. Regarding length of stay (LOS), there was no difference between the two groups before (13.1 ± 13.7 days vs. 12.7 ± 10.1 days, P = 0.376) and after PSM (14.4 ± 15.1 days vs. 14.5 ± 16.2 days, P = 0.985). The length of the resected pancreas was shorter in the OCP group than in the LCP group before PSM (50.0 ± 13.2 mm vs. 41.1 ± 11.1 mm, P = 0.043). However, there was no difference between the two groups after PSM (47.9 ± 12.5 mm vs. 37.9 ± 10.4 mm, P = 0.084). Moreover, the other variables showed no difference between the two groups before and after PSM.

Conclusion: LCP can demonstrate similar safety and effectiveness to OCP, even in the early stages of the learning curve.

Keywords: Central pancreatectomy; Complication; Laparoscopic; Open; Propensity score-matched.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Goudard Y, Gaujoux S, Dokmak S, Cros J, Couvelard A, Palazzo M et al (2014) Reappraisal of central pancreatectomy a 12-year single-center experience. JAMA Surg 149(4):356–363. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2013.4146 - PubMed
    1. Iacono C, Verlato G, Ruzzenente A, Campagnaro T, Bacchelli C, Valdegamberi A et al (2013) Systematic review of central pancreatectomy and meta-analysis of central versus distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg 100(7):873–885 - PubMed
    1. Santangelo M, Esposito A, Tammaro V, Calogero A, Criscitiello C, Roberti G et al (2016) What indication, morbidity and mortality for central pancreatectomy in oncological surgery? A systematic review. Int J Surg 28(Suppl 1):S172–S176 - PubMed
    1. Baca I, Bokan I (2003) Laparoscopic segmental pancreas resection and pancreatic cystadenoma. Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift für alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen 74(10):961–5
    1. Zhang R-C, Zhang B, Mou Y-P, Xu X-W, Zhou Y-C, Huang C-J et al (2017) Comparison of clinical outcomes and quality of life between laparoscopic and open central pancreatectomy with pancreaticojejunostomy. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 31(11):4756–4763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5552-7

LinkOut - more resources