Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 12/2016

22.03.2016 | Review

Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus open approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy

verfasst von: Hang Zhang, XiangHu Wu, Feng Zhu, Ming Shen, Rui Tian, ChengJian Shi, Xin Wang, GuangQin Xiao, XingJun Guo, Min Wang, RenYi Qin

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 12/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Backgrounds and objective

The technique of minimally invasive pancreatic surgeries has evolved rapidly, including minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). However, controversy on safety and feasibility remains when comparing the MIPD with the open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD); therefore, we aimed to compare MIPD and OPD with a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies (up to February 2016) comparing MIPD with OPD. Intra-operative outcomes, oncologic data, postoperative complications and postoperative recovery were evaluated.

Results

Twenty-two retrospective studies including 6120 patients (1018 MIPDs and 5102 OPDs) were included. MIPD was associated with a reduction in estimated blood loss (WMD −312.00 ml, 95 % CI −436.30 to −187.70 ml, p < 0.001), transfusion rate (OR 0.41, 95 % CI 0.30–0.55, p < 0.001), wound infection (OR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.20–0.66, p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (WMD −3.57 days, 95 % CI −5.17 to −1.98 days, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, MIPD group has a higher R0 resection rate (OR 1.47, 95 % CI 1.18–1.82, p < 0.001) and more lymph nodes harvest (WMD 1.74, 95 % CI 1.03–2.45, p < 0.001). However, it had longer operation time (WMD 83.91 min, 95 % CI 36.60–131.21 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two procedures in morbidities (p = 0.86), postoperative pancreatic fistula (p = 0.17), delayed gastric empting (p = 0.65), vascular resection (p = 0.68), reoperation (p = 0.33) and mortality (p = 0.90).

Conclusions

MIPD can be a reasonable alternative to OPD with potential advantages. However, further large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-ups are suggested to confirm and update the findings of our analysis.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Kennedy RH, Francis EA, Wharton R, Blazeby JM, Quirke P, West NP, Dutton SJ (2014) Multicenter randomized controlled trial of conventional versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery program: EnROL. J Clin Oncol 32(17):1804–1811CrossRefPubMed Kennedy RH, Francis EA, Wharton R, Blazeby JM, Quirke P, West NP, Dutton SJ (2014) Multicenter randomized controlled trial of conventional versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery program: EnROL. J Clin Oncol 32(17):1804–1811CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Park KB, Kwon OK, Yu W, Jang B-C (2016) Body composition changes after totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with delta-shaped anastomosis: a comparison with conventional Billroth I anastomosis. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-016-4744-x Park KB, Kwon OK, Yu W, Jang B-C (2016) Body composition changes after totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with delta-shaped anastomosis: a comparison with conventional Billroth I anastomosis. Surg Endosc. doi:10.​1007/​s00464-016-4744-x
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Ng SS, Lee JF, Yiu RY, Li JC, Hon SS, Mak TW, Ngo DK, Leung WW, Leung KL (2014) Laparoscopic-assisted versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for mid and low rectal cancer: a prospective, randomized trial. Surg Endosc 28(1):297–306CrossRefPubMed Ng SS, Lee JF, Yiu RY, Li JC, Hon SS, Mak TW, Ngo DK, Leung WW, Leung KL (2014) Laparoscopic-assisted versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for mid and low rectal cancer: a prospective, randomized trial. Surg Endosc 28(1):297–306CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G, Sansonetti A, Di Paola M (2005) Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer: five-year results of a randomized prospective trial. Ann Surg 241:232–237CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G, Sansonetti A, Di Paola M (2005) Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer: five-year results of a randomized prospective trial. Ann Surg 241:232–237CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Gagner M, Pomp A (1994) Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 8:408–410CrossRefPubMed Gagner M, Pomp A (1994) Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 8:408–410CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M et al (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784CrossRefPubMed Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M et al (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8:336–341CrossRefPubMed Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8:336–341CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008–2012CrossRefPubMed Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008–2012CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Clarke M, Horton R (2001) Bringing it all together: Lancet-Cochrane collaborate on systematic reviews. Lancet 357:1728CrossRefPubMed Clarke M, Horton R (2001) Bringing it all together: Lancet-Cochrane collaborate on systematic reviews. Lancet 357:1728CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH (1997) Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 127:820–826CrossRefPubMed Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH (1997) Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 127:820–826CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Cho A, Yamamoto H, Nagata M et al (2009) Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease. Am J Surg 198(3):445–449CrossRefPubMed Cho A, Yamamoto H, Nagata M et al (2009) Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease. Am J Surg 198(3):445–449CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Ito M, Horiguchi A, Ishihara S et al (2009) Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: totally laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and reconstruction. Pancreas 38(8):1009 Ito M, Horiguchi A, Ishihara S et al (2009) Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: totally laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and reconstruction. Pancreas 38(8):1009
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM, Ayloo S, Benedetti E, Giulianotti PC (2011) Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. World J Surg 35(12):2739–2746CrossRefPubMed Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM, Ayloo S, Benedetti E, Giulianotti PC (2011) Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. World J Surg 35(12):2739–2746CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhou NX, Chen JZ, Liu Q et al (2011) Outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy with robotic surgery versus open surgery. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg MRCAS 7(2):131–137CrossRef Zhou NX, Chen JZ, Liu Q et al (2011) Outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy with robotic surgery versus open surgery. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg MRCAS 7(2):131–137CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Zureikat AH, Breaux JA, Steel JL, Hughes SJ (2011) Can laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy be safely implemented? J Gastrointest Surg 15(7):1151–1157CrossRefPubMed Zureikat AH, Breaux JA, Steel JL, Hughes SJ (2011) Can laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy be safely implemented? J Gastrointest Surg 15(7):1151–1157CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Asbun HJ, Stauffer JA (2012) Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: overall outcomes and severity of complications using the Accordion Severity Grading System. J Am Coll Surg 215(6):810–819CrossRefPubMed Asbun HJ, Stauffer JA (2012) Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: overall outcomes and severity of complications using the Accordion Severity Grading System. J Am Coll Surg 215(6):810–819CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Chalikonda S, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Walsh RM (2012) Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc 26(9):2397–2402CrossRefPubMed Chalikonda S, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Walsh RM (2012) Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc 26(9):2397–2402CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Kuroki T, Adachi T, Okamoto T, Kanematsu T (2012) A non-randomized comparative study of laparoscopy-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 59(114):570–573CrossRefPubMed Kuroki T, Adachi T, Okamoto T, Kanematsu T (2012) A non-randomized comparative study of laparoscopy-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 59(114):570–573CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy–a comparative study. Int J Surg 10(9):475–479CrossRefPubMed Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy–a comparative study. Int J Surg 10(9):475–479CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Li YB, Wang X, Wang MJ, Yang ZG, Peng B (2013) Delayed gastric emptying after laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study. Zhonghua wai ke za zhi [Chinese journal of surgery] 51(4):304–307 Li YB, Wang X, Wang MJ, Yang ZG, Peng B (2013) Delayed gastric emptying after laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study. Zhonghua wai ke za zhi [Chinese journal of surgery] 51(4):304–307
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Mesleh MG, Stauffer JA, Bowers SP, Asbun HJ (2013) Cost analysis of open and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single institution comparison. Surg Endosc 27(12):4518–4523CrossRefPubMed Mesleh MG, Stauffer JA, Bowers SP, Asbun HJ (2013) Cost analysis of open and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single institution comparison. Surg Endosc 27(12):4518–4523CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Tao Z, Fulong H, Wei Z (2013) Clinical effect observation of totally laparoscopic and laparotomy line pancreatic duodenal resection. Pract J Clin Med 10(4):185–186 Tao Z, Fulong H, Wei Z (2013) Clinical effect observation of totally laparoscopic and laparotomy line pancreatic duodenal resection. Pract J Clin Med 10(4):185–186
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Bao PQ, Mazirka PO, Watkins KT (2014) Retrospective comparison of robot-assisted minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms. J Gastrointest Surg 18(4):682–689CrossRefPubMed Bao PQ, Mazirka PO, Watkins KT (2014) Retrospective comparison of robot-assisted minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms. J Gastrointest Surg 18(4):682–689CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG et al (2014) Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic advantages over open approaches? Ann Surg 260(4):633–638CrossRefPubMed Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG et al (2014) Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic advantages over open approaches? Ann Surg 260(4):633–638CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Hakeem AR, Verbeke CS, Cairns A, Aldouri A, Smith AM, Menon KV (2014) A matched-pair analysis of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: oncological outcomes using Leeds Pathology Protocol. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 13(4):435–441CrossRefPubMed Hakeem AR, Verbeke CS, Cairns A, Aldouri A, Smith AM, Menon KV (2014) A matched-pair analysis of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: oncological outcomes using Leeds Pathology Protocol. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 13(4):435–441CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Langan RC, Graham JA, Chin AB et al (2014) Laparoscopic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: early favorable physical quality-of-life measures. Surgery 156(2):379–384CrossRefPubMed Langan RC, Graham JA, Chin AB et al (2014) Laparoscopic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: early favorable physical quality-of-life measures. Surgery 156(2):379–384CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang Y, Bergman S, Piedimonte S, Vanounou T (2014) Bridging the gap between open and minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: the hybrid approach. Can J Surg 57(4):263–270CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wang Y, Bergman S, Piedimonte S, Vanounou T (2014) Bridging the gap between open and minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: the hybrid approach. Can J Surg 57(4):263–270CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Wei H, Wei B, Zheng Z, Huang Y, Huang J, Fang J (2014) Comparative study of outcomes after laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 17(5):465–468 Wei H, Wei B, Zheng Z, Huang Y, Huang J, Fang J (2014) Comparative study of outcomes after laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 17(5):465–468
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Yun L, Qian Z, Chenghong P (2014) Analysis of the relevant factors of pancreatic fistula after Robot assisted pancreatic surgery. J Hepatobiliary Surg 22(1):15–19 Yun L, Qian Z, Chenghong P (2014) Analysis of the relevant factors of pancreatic fistula after Robot assisted pancreatic surgery. J Hepatobiliary Surg 22(1):15–19
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen S, Chen JZ, Zhan Q et al (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, matched, mid-term follow-up study. Surg Endosc 29(12):3698–3711CrossRefPubMed Chen S, Chen JZ, Zhan Q et al (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, matched, mid-term follow-up study. Surg Endosc 29(12):3698–3711CrossRefPubMed
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Mendoza AS 3rd, Han HS, Yoon YS, Cho JY, Choi Y (2015) Laparoscopy-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy as minimally invasive surgery for periampullary tumors: a comparison of short-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 22(12):819–824CrossRefPubMed Mendoza AS 3rd, Han HS, Yoon YS, Cho JY, Choi Y (2015) Laparoscopy-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy as minimally invasive surgery for periampullary tumors: a comparison of short-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 22(12):819–824CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Sharpe SM, Talamonti MS, Wang CE et al (2015) Early national experience with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a comparison of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy from the National Cancer Data Base. J Am Coll Surg 221(1):175–184CrossRefPubMed Sharpe SM, Talamonti MS, Wang CE et al (2015) Early national experience with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a comparison of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy from the National Cancer Data Base. J Am Coll Surg 221(1):175–184CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Altieri MS, Yang J, Telem DA, Zhu J, Halbert C, Talamini M, Pryor AD (2016) Robotic approaches may offer benefit in colorectal procedures, more controversial in other areas: a review of 168,248 cases. Surg Endosc 30(3):925–933CrossRefPubMed Altieri MS, Yang J, Telem DA, Zhu J, Halbert C, Talamini M, Pryor AD (2016) Robotic approaches may offer benefit in colorectal procedures, more controversial in other areas: a review of 168,248 cases. Surg Endosc 30(3):925–933CrossRefPubMed
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Stafford AT, Walsh RM (2015) Robotic surgery of the pancreas: the current state of the art. J Surg Oncol 112(3):289–294CrossRefPubMed Stafford AT, Walsh RM (2015) Robotic surgery of the pancreas: the current state of the art. J Surg Oncol 112(3):289–294CrossRefPubMed
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Signori S et al (2012) Analysis of instrument traffic during laparoscopic robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB 14:689 Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Signori S et al (2012) Analysis of instrument traffic during laparoscopic robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB 14:689
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Varela JE, Wilson SE, Nguyen NT (2010) Laparoscopic surgery significantly reduces surgical-site infections compared with open surgery. Surg Endosc 24:270–276CrossRefPubMed Varela JE, Wilson SE, Nguyen NT (2010) Laparoscopic surgery significantly reduces surgical-site infections compared with open surgery. Surg Endosc 24:270–276CrossRefPubMed
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Adsay NV, Basturk O, Altinel D et al (2009) The number of lymph nodes identified in a simple pancreatoduodenectomy specimen: comparison of conventional vs orange-peeling approach in pathologic assessment. Mod Pathol 22:107–112CrossRefPubMed Adsay NV, Basturk O, Altinel D et al (2009) The number of lymph nodes identified in a simple pancreatoduodenectomy specimen: comparison of conventional vs orange-peeling approach in pathologic assessment. Mod Pathol 22:107–112CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus open approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy
verfasst von
Hang Zhang
XiangHu Wu
Feng Zhu
Ming Shen
Rui Tian
ChengJian Shi
Xin Wang
GuangQin Xiao
XingJun Guo
Min Wang
RenYi Qin
Publikationsdatum
22.03.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 12/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4864-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 12/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

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

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

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“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar 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“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

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.