Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 12/2017

28.08.2017 | Pancreatic Tumors

Conversion of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy: Predictors and Outcomes

verfasst von: Ibrahim Nassour, MD, MSCS, Sam C. Wang, MD, Matthew R. Porembka, MD, Mathew M. Augustine, MD, PhD, Adam C. Yopp, MD, John C. Mansour, MD, Rebecca M. Minter, MD, Michael A. Choti, MD, MBA, Patricio M. Polanco, MD

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 12/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Data on the risk factors for conversion during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and its effect on postoperative outcomes are limited.

Methods

This retrospective study used the pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to compare MIDP requiring unplanned conversion with completed MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

Results

Of the 2926 cases identified in this study, 48.8% had ODP, 42.8% had MIDP, and 7.9% had conversion to MIDP. The conversion rate was 15.3% overall, 17.3% for laparoscopic surgery, and 8.5% for robotic surgery (p < 0.001). The risk factors associated with conversion were higher body mass index (BMI), low preoperative albumin level, a current smoking habit, and malignant T3/T4 disease or chronic pancreatitis compared with benign tumor smaller than 5 cm. A robotic approach was associated with a lower adjusted conversion rate than laparoscopy (odds ratio [OR] 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19–0.52). After adjustment, conversion was associated with a higher overall complication rate than MIDP (OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.35–2.66) or ODP (OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.00–1.98).

Conclusions

Chronic pancreatitis, large malignant tumors, higher BMI, lower serum albumin, and a current smoking habit were shown to be independent risk factors for conversion during MIDP. A robotic approach was associated with a lower conversion rate than laparoscopic MIDP. Conversion of MIDP was associated with a higher overall complication rate than completed MIDP or ODP. Adequate patient selection for MIDP may prevent conversion and associated increased morbidity.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Røsok BI, de Rooij T, van Hilst J, et al. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. HPB Oxford. 2017;19:205–214.PubMed Røsok BI, de Rooij T, van Hilst J, et al. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. HPB Oxford. 2017;19:205–214.PubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Mehrabi A, Hafezi M, Arvin J, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas: it’s time to randomize. Surgery. 2015;157:45–55.CrossRefPubMed Mehrabi A, Hafezi M, Arvin J, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas: it’s time to randomize. Surgery. 2015;157:45–55.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Shakir M, Boone BA, Polanco PM, et al. The learning curve for robotic distal pancreatectomy: an analysis of outcomes of the first 100 consecutive cases at a high-volume pancreatic centre. HPB Oxford. 2015;17:580–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shakir M, Boone BA, Polanco PM, et al. The learning curve for robotic distal pancreatectomy: an analysis of outcomes of the first 100 consecutive cases at a high-volume pancreatic centre. HPB Oxford. 2015;17:580–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Zurück zum Zitat de Rooij T, van Hilst J, Boerma D, et al. Impact of a nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (LAELAPS). Ann Surg. 2016;264:754–62.CrossRefPubMed de Rooij T, van Hilst J, Boerma D, et al. Impact of a nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (LAELAPS). Ann Surg. 2016;264:754–62.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Sui CJ, Li B, Yang JM, Wang SJ, Zhou YM. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis. Asian J Surg. 2012;35:1–8.CrossRefPubMed Sui CJ, Li B, Yang JM, Wang SJ, Zhou YM. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis. Asian J Surg. 2012;35:1–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee SY, Allen PJ, Sadot E, et al. Distal pancreatectomy: a single institution’s experience in open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:18–27.CrossRefPubMed Lee SY, Allen PJ, Sadot E, et al. Distal pancreatectomy: a single institution’s experience in open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:18–27.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Plotkin A, Ceppa EP, Zarzaur BL, Kilbane EM, Riall TS, Pitt HA. Reduced morbidity with minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. HPB Oxford. 2017;19:279–85.CrossRefPubMed Plotkin A, Ceppa EP, Zarzaur BL, Kilbane EM, Riall TS, Pitt HA. Reduced morbidity with minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. HPB Oxford. 2017;19:279–85.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg. 2013;257:128–32.CrossRefPubMed Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg. 2013;257:128–32.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Gavriilidis P, Lim C, Menahem B, Lahat E, Salloum C, Azoulay D. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: the first meta-analysis. HPB Oxford. 2016;18:567–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gavriilidis P, Lim C, Menahem B, Lahat E, Salloum C, Azoulay D. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: the first meta-analysis. HPB Oxford. 2016;18:567–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Goh BKP, Chan CY, Lee SY, et al. Factors associated with and consequences of open conversion after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: initial experience at a single institution. ANZ J Surg. 2016. doi:10.1111/ans.13661. Goh BKP, Chan CY, Lee SY, et al. Factors associated with and consequences of open conversion after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: initial experience at a single institution. ANZ J Surg. 2016. doi:10.​1111/​ans.​13661.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Jayaraman S, Gonen M, Brennan MF, et al. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: evolution of a technique at a single institution. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:503–9.CrossRefPubMed Jayaraman S, Gonen M, Brennan MF, et al. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: evolution of a technique at a single institution. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:503–9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Zureikat AH, Borrebach J, Pitt HA, et al. Minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery in North America: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of predictors of conversion for laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy and hepatectomy. HPB Oxford. 2017:19(7):595–602.CrossRefPubMed Zureikat AH, Borrebach J, Pitt HA, et al. Minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery in North America: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of predictors of conversion for laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy and hepatectomy. HPB Oxford. 2017:19(7):595–602.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Kaafarani HM, Smith TS, Neumayer L, Berger DH, Depalma RG, Itani KM. Trends, outcomes, and predictors of open and conversion to open cholecystectomy in Veterans Health Administration hospitals. Am J Surg. 2010;200:32–40.CrossRefPubMed Kaafarani HM, Smith TS, Neumayer L, Berger DH, Depalma RG, Itani KM. Trends, outcomes, and predictors of open and conversion to open cholecystectomy in Veterans Health Administration hospitals. Am J Surg. 2010;200:32–40.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Lipman JM, Claridge JA, Haridas M, Martin MD, Yao DC, Grimes KL, Malangoni MA. Preoperative findings predict conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Surgery. 2007;142:556–65.CrossRefPubMed Lipman JM, Claridge JA, Haridas M, Martin MD, Yao DC, Grimes KL, Malangoni MA. Preoperative findings predict conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Surgery. 2007;142:556–65.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Sippey M, Grzybowski M, Manwaring ML, et al. Acute cholecystitis: risk factors for conversion to an open procedure. J Surg Res. 2015;199:357–61.CrossRefPubMed Sippey M, Grzybowski M, Manwaring ML, et al. Acute cholecystitis: risk factors for conversion to an open procedure. J Surg Res. 2015;199:357–61.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Bhama AR, Charlton ME, Schmitt MB, Cromwell JW, Byrn JC. Factors associated with conversion from laparoscopic to open colectomy using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17:257–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bhama AR, Charlton ME, Schmitt MB, Cromwell JW, Byrn JC. Factors associated with conversion from laparoscopic to open colectomy using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17:257–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen S, Zhan Q, Chen J-Z, et al. Robotic approach improves spleen-preserving rate and shortens postoperative hospital stay of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a matched cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:3507–18.CrossRefPubMed Chen S, Zhan Q, Chen J-Z, et al. Robotic approach improves spleen-preserving rate and shortens postoperative hospital stay of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a matched cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:3507–18.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Duran H, Ielpo B, Caruso R, et al. Does robotic distal pancreatectomy surgery offer similar results as laparoscopic and open approach? A comparative study from a single medical center. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg. 2014;10:280–5.CrossRef Duran H, Ielpo B, Caruso R, et al. Does robotic distal pancreatectomy surgery offer similar results as laparoscopic and open approach? A comparative study from a single medical center. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg. 2014;10:280–5.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Conversion of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy: Predictors and Outcomes
verfasst von
Ibrahim Nassour, MD, MSCS
Sam C. Wang, MD
Matthew R. Porembka, MD
Mathew M. Augustine, MD, PhD
Adam C. Yopp, MD
John C. Mansour, MD
Rebecca M. Minter, MD
Michael A. Choti, MD, MBA
Patricio M. Polanco, MD
Publikationsdatum
28.08.2017
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 12/2017
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6062-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2017

Annals of Surgical Oncology 12/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

CME: 2 Punkte

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht, PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske Das Webinar S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“ beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.