Skip to main content
Erschienen in: World Journal of Surgery 3/2018

10.08.2017 | Original Scientific Report

Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: What is the Best “Choice”? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Non-randomized Comparative Studies

verfasst von: Claudio Ricci, Riccardo Casadei, Giovanni Taffurelli, Carlo Alberto Pacilio, Marco Ricciardiello, Francesco Minni

Erschienen in: World Journal of Surgery | Ausgabe 3/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Many mini-invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) techniques have been reported, but their advantages with respect to an open technique (OPD) and with respect to each other are unclear.

Method

A systematic literature search of studies comparing different types of MIPD was carried out: laparoscopic-assisted (LAPD), totally robotic (TRPD), totally laparoscopic (TLPD) or totally laparoscopic—robotic assisted (TLPD-RA) to OPD. The primary endpoint was postoperative mortality. The secondary endpoints were intraoperative, postoperative and oncological outcomes. A network meta-analysis was designed to generate direct, indirect and mixed estimate effects, between different approaches, for each variable. The effects were reported as pairwise comparisons and hierarchical ranking as to each approach could be the best or the worst for each outcome, expressed by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

Results

Twenty studies were identified, involving 2759 patients: 1813 OPDs, 81 LAPDs, 505 TRPDs, 224 TLPDs and 136 TLPD-RAs. No differences regarding postoperative mortality were found in pairwise comparison. The LAPD technique had a high probability of being the worst approach, while TRPD had a high probability of being one of the best. Regarding the secondary endpoints, OPD was the best regarding operative time and postoperative bleeding, but the worst regarding blood loss and wound infection. The TRPD or TLPD-RA techniques seemed to be the best for delayed gastric emptying, length of hospital stay, harvested lymph nodes and postoperative morbidity. The TLPD technique was often the worst approach, especially for overall and major complications, postoperative bleeding and biliary leak.

Conclusion

The safest MIPDs are those involving a robotic system which seems to have a promising role in ameliorating the outcomes of OPD, especially when compared to a laparoscopic approach.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
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
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang M, Cai H, Meng L et al (2016) Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comprehensive review. Int J Surg 35:139–146CrossRefPubMed Wang M, Cai H, Meng L et al (2016) Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comprehensive review. Int J Surg 35:139–146CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Nakamura M, Nakashima H (2013) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy: is it worthwhile? A meta-analysis of laparoscopic pancreatectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 20:421–428CrossRefPubMed Nakamura M, Nakashima H (2013) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy: is it worthwhile? A meta-analysis of laparoscopic pancreatectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 20:421–428CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Nigri G, Petrucciani N, La Torre M et al (2014) Duodenopancreatectomy: open or minimally invasive approach? Surgeon 12:227–234CrossRefPubMed Nigri G, Petrucciani N, La Torre M et al (2014) Duodenopancreatectomy: open or minimally invasive approach? Surgeon 12:227–234CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Lei P, Wei B, Guo W et al (2014) Minimally invasive surgical approach compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the feasibility and safety. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 24:296–305CrossRefPubMed Lei P, Wei B, Guo W et al (2014) Minimally invasive surgical approach compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the feasibility and safety. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 24:296–305CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang J, Wu WM, You L et al (2013) Robotic versus open pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1774–1780CrossRefPubMed Zhang J, Wu WM, You L et al (2013) Robotic versus open pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1774–1780CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Qin H, Qiu J, Zhao Y et al (2014) Does minimally-invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy have advantages over its open method? A meta-analysis of retrospective studies. PLoS ONE 13(9):e104274CrossRef Qin H, Qiu J, Zhao Y et al (2014) Does minimally-invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy have advantages over its open method? A meta-analysis of retrospective studies. PLoS ONE 13(9):e104274CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Correa-Gallego C, Dinkelspiel HE, Sulimanoff I et al (2014) Minimally-invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg 218:129–139CrossRefPubMed Correa-Gallego C, Dinkelspiel HE, Sulimanoff I et al (2014) Minimally-invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg 218:129–139CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Doula C, Kostakis ID, Damaskos C et al (2016) Comparison between minimally invasive and open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:6–16CrossRefPubMed Doula C, Kostakis ID, Damaskos C et al (2016) Comparison between minimally invasive and open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:6–16CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Peng L, Lin S, Li Y et al. (2016) Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc [Epub ahead of print] Peng L, Lin S, Li Y et al. (2016) Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc [Epub ahead of print]
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Shin SH, Kim YJ, Song KB et al. (2016) Totally laparoscopic or robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy versuss open surgery for periampullary neoplasms: separate systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Surg Endosc [Epub ahead of print] Shin SH, Kim YJ, Song KB et al. (2016) Totally laparoscopic or robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy versuss open surgery for periampullary neoplasms: separate systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Surg Endosc [Epub ahead of print]
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang H, Wu X, Zhu F et al (2016) Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive vs. open approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 30:5173–5184CrossRefPubMed Zhang H, Wu X, Zhu F et al (2016) Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive vs. open approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 30:5173–5184CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR et al (2013) Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 16(159):130–137CrossRef Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR et al (2013) Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 16(159):130–137CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Higgins JP, Green S, Collaboration C (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Wiley Online Library Higgins JP, Green S, Collaboration C (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Wiley Online Library
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM et al (2015) The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 11:777–784CrossRef Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM et al (2015) The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 11:777–784CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D et al (2003) Methodological index for non-randomised studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716CrossRefPubMed Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D et al (2003) Methodological index for non-randomised studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Swanson RS, Pezzi CM, Mallin K et al (2014) The 90-day mortality after pancreatectomy for cancer is double the 30-day mortality: more than 20,000 resections from the national cancer data base. Ann Surg Oncol 21:4059–4067CrossRefPubMed Swanson RS, Pezzi CM, Mallin K et al (2014) The 90-day mortality after pancreatectomy for cancer is double the 30-day mortality: more than 20,000 resections from the national cancer data base. Ann Surg Oncol 21:4059–4067CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP (2005) Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 331:897–900CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP (2005) Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 331:897–900CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Mills EJ, Ioannidis JP, Thorlund K et al (2012) How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis. JAMA 26(308):1246–1253CrossRef Mills EJ, Ioannidis JP, Thorlund K et al (2012) How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis. JAMA 26(308):1246–1253CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Salanti G, Ades AE (2011) Ioannidis JP Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol 64:163–171CrossRefPubMed Salanti G, Ades AE (2011) Ioannidis JP Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol 64:163–171CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat White IR, Barrett JK, Jackson D et al (2012) Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. Res Synth Methods 3:111–125CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral White IR, Barrett JK, Jackson D et al (2012) Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. Res Synth Methods 3:111–125CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE et al (1997) The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 50:683–691CrossRefPubMed Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE et al (1997) The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 50:683–691CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ et al (2012) Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol 41:818–827CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ et al (2012) Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol 41:818–827CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
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 215:810–819CrossRefPubMed 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 215:810–819CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Senthilnathan P, Chinnusamy P, Ramanujam A et al (2015) Comparison of pathological radicality between open and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a tertiary centre. Indian J Surg Oncol 6:20–25CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Senthilnathan P, Chinnusamy P, Ramanujam A et al (2015) Comparison of pathological radicality between open and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a tertiary centre. Indian J Surg Oncol 6:20–25CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Shubert CR, Wagie AE, Farnell MB et al (2015) Clinical risk score to predict pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: independent external validation for open and laparoscopic approaches. J Am Coll Surg 3:689–698CrossRef Shubert CR, Wagie AE, Farnell MB et al (2015) Clinical risk score to predict pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: independent external validation for open and laparoscopic approaches. J Am Coll Surg 3:689–698CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Mesleh MG, Stauffer JA, Bowers SP et al (2013) Cost analysis of open and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single institution comparison. Surg Endosc 27:4518–4523CrossRefPubMed Mesleh MG, Stauffer JA, Bowers SP et al (2013) Cost analysis of open and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single institution comparison. Surg Endosc 27:4518–4523CrossRefPubMed
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Adam MA, Choudhury K, Dinan MA et al (2015) minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: practice patterns and short-term outcomes among 7061 patients. Ann Surg 262:372–377CrossRefPubMed Adam MA, Choudhury K, Dinan MA et al (2015) minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: practice patterns and short-term outcomes among 7061 patients. Ann Surg 262:372–377CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Stauffer JA, Coppola A, Villacreses D et al. (2016) Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results at a single institution. Surg Endosc [Epub ahead of print] Stauffer JA, Coppola A, Villacreses D et al. (2016) Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results at a single institution. Surg Endosc [Epub ahead of print]
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG et al (2015) Pancreaticoduodenectomy with major vascular resection: a comparison of laparoscopic versus open approaches. J Gastrointest Surg 19:189–194CrossRefPubMed Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG et al (2015) Pancreaticoduodenectomy with major vascular resection: a comparison of laparoscopic versus open approaches. J Gastrointest Surg 19:189–194CrossRefPubMed
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 221:175–184CrossRefPubMed 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 221:175–184CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Girgis MD, Zenati MS, Steve J et al. (2016) Robotic approach mitigates perioperative morbidity in obese patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy HPB (Oxford) [Epub ahead of print] Girgis MD, Zenati MS, Steve J et al. (2016) Robotic approach mitigates perioperative morbidity in obese patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy HPB (Oxford) [Epub ahead of print]
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Wei H, Wei B, Zheng Z et al (2014) Comparative study of outcomes after laparoscopic vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi 17:465–468PubMed Wei H, Wei B, Zheng Z et al (2014) Comparative study of outcomes after laparoscopic vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi 17:465–468PubMed
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Li YB, Wang X, Wang MJ et al (2013) Delayed gastric emptying after laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 51:304–307PubMed Li YB, Wang X, Wang MJ et al (2013) Delayed gastric emptying after laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 51:304–307PubMed
37.
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 198:445–449CrossRefPubMed Cho A, Yamamoto H, Nagata M et al (2009) Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease. Am J Surg 198:445–449CrossRefPubMed
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM et al (2011) Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. World J Surg 35:2739–2746. CrossRefPubMed Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM et al (2011) Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. World J Surg 35:2739–2746. CrossRefPubMed
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhou NX, Chen JZ, Liu Q et al (2011) Outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy with robotic surgery vs. open surgery. Int J Med Robot 7:131–137CrossRefPubMed Zhou NX, Chen JZ, Liu Q et al (2011) Outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy with robotic surgery vs. open surgery. Int J Med Robot 7:131–137CrossRefPubMed
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Zureikat AH, Breaux JA, Steel JL et al (2011) Can laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy be safely implemented? J Gastrointest Surg 15:1151–1157CrossRefPubMed Zureikat AH, Breaux JA, Steel JL et al (2011) Can laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy be safely implemented? J Gastrointest Surg 15:1151–1157CrossRefPubMed
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Chalikonda S, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Walsh RM (2012) Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc 26:2397–2402CrossRefPubMed Chalikonda S, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Walsh RM (2012) Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc 26:2397–2402CrossRefPubMed
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Kuroki T, Adachi T, Okamoto T et al (2012) A non-randomised comparative study of laparoscopy-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 59:570–573CrossRefPubMed Kuroki T, Adachi T, Okamoto T et al (2012) A non-randomised comparative study of laparoscopy-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 59:570–573CrossRefPubMed
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy–a comparative study. Int J Surg 10:475–479CrossRefPubMed Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy–a comparative study. Int J Surg 10:475–479CrossRefPubMed
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Bao PQ, Mazirka PO, Watkins KT (2014) Retrospective comparison of robot-assisted minimally invasive vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms. J Gastrointest Surg 18:682–689CrossRefPubMed Bao PQ, Mazirka PO, Watkins KT (2014) Retrospective comparison of robot-assisted minimally invasive vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms. J Gastrointest Surg 18:682–689CrossRefPubMed
45.
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 260:633–638CrossRefPubMed Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG et al (2014) Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic advantages over open approaches? Ann Surg 260:633–638CrossRefPubMed
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Hakeem AR, Verbeke CS, Cairns A et al (2014) A matched-pair analysis of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: oncological outcomes using leeds pathology protocol. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 13:435–441CrossRefPubMed Hakeem AR, Verbeke CS, Cairns A et al (2014) A matched-pair analysis of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: oncological outcomes using leeds pathology protocol. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 13:435–441CrossRefPubMed
47.
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 156:379–384CrossRefPubMed Langan RC, Graham JA, Chin AB et al (2014) Laparoscopic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: early favorable physical quality-of-life measures. Surgery 156:379–384CrossRefPubMed
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen S, Chen JZ, Zhan Q et al (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, matched, mid-term follow-up study. Surg Endosc 29:3698–3711CrossRefPubMed Chen S, Chen JZ, Zhan Q et al (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, matched, mid-term follow-up study. Surg Endosc 29:3698–3711CrossRefPubMed
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Dokmak S, Ftériche FS, Aussilhou B et al (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy should not be routine for resection of periampullary tumors. J Am Coll Surg 220:831–838CrossRefPubMed Dokmak S, Ftériche FS, Aussilhou B et al (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy should not be routine for resection of periampullary tumors. J Am Coll Surg 220:831–838CrossRefPubMed
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Mendoza AS 3rd, Han HS, Yoon YS et al (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 22:819–824CrossRefPubMed Mendoza AS 3rd, Han HS, Yoon YS et al (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 22:819–824CrossRefPubMed
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Song KB, Kim SC, Hwang DW et al (2015) Matched case-control analysis comparing laparoscopic and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with periampullary tumors. Ann Surg 262:146–155CrossRefPubMed Song KB, Kim SC, Hwang DW et al (2015) Matched case-control analysis comparing laparoscopic and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with periampullary tumors. Ann Surg 262:146–155CrossRefPubMed
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Tan CL, Zhang H, Peng B et al (2015) Outcome and costs of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy during the initial learning curve vs laparotomy. World J Gastroenterol 21:5311–5319CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tan CL, Zhang H, Peng B et al (2015) Outcome and costs of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy during the initial learning curve vs laparotomy. World J Gastroenterol 21:5311–5319CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Baker EH, Ross SW, Seshadri R et al (2016) Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: comparison of complications and cost to the open approach. Int J Med Robot 12:554–560CrossRefPubMed Baker EH, Ross SW, Seshadri R et al (2016) Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: comparison of complications and cost to the open approach. Int J Med Robot 12:554–560CrossRefPubMed
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Liu R, Zhang T, Zhao ZM, et al. (2016) The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center. Surg Endosc [Epub ahead of print] Liu R, Zhang T, Zhao ZM, et al. (2016) The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center. Surg Endosc [Epub ahead of print]
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y et al (2016) A multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 264:640–649CrossRefPubMed Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y et al (2016) A multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 264:640–649CrossRefPubMed
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Boggi U, Napoli N, Costa F et al (2016) Robotic-assisted pancreatic resections. World J Surg 40:2497–2506. CrossRefPubMed Boggi U, Napoli N, Costa F et al (2016) Robotic-assisted pancreatic resections. World J Surg 40:2497–2506. CrossRefPubMed
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13CrossRefPubMed Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13CrossRefPubMed
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142:761–768CrossRefPubMed Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142:761–768CrossRefPubMed
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142:20–25CrossRefPubMed Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142:20–25CrossRefPubMed
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright GP, Zureikat AH (2016) Development of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: an evidence-based systematic review of laparoscopic vs robotic approaches. J Gastrointest Surg 8:784–791CrossRef Wright GP, Zureikat AH (2016) Development of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: an evidence-based systematic review of laparoscopic vs robotic approaches. J Gastrointest Surg 8:784–791CrossRef
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Ito M, Horiguchi A, Ishihara S et al (2009) Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: totally laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and reconstruction. Pancreas 38:1009CrossRef Ito M, Horiguchi A, Ishihara S et al (2009) Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: totally laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and reconstruction. Pancreas 38:1009CrossRef
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang Y, Bergman S, Piedimonte S et al (2014) Bridging the gap between open and minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: the hybrid approach. Can J Surg 57:263–270CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wang Y, Bergman S, Piedimonte S et al (2014) Bridging the gap between open and minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: the hybrid approach. Can J Surg 57:263–270CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
63.
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 22:15–19 Yun L, Qian Z, Chenghong P (2014) Analysis of the relevant factors of pancreatic fistula after robot assisted pancreatic surgery. J Hepatobiliary Surg 22:15–19
64.
Zurück zum Zitat van Heek NT, Kuhlmann KF, Scholten RJ et al (2005) Hospital volume and mortality after pancreatic resection: a systematic review and an evaluation of intervention in the Netherlands. Ann Surg 242:781–790CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral van Heek NT, Kuhlmann KF, Scholten RJ et al (2005) Hospital volume and mortality after pancreatic resection: a systematic review and an evaluation of intervention in the Netherlands. Ann Surg 242:781–790CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
65.
Zurück zum Zitat Benlice C, Costedio M, Stocchi L et al (2016) Hand-assisted laparoscopic vs open colectomy: an assessment from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted cohort. Am J Surg 212:808–813CrossRefPubMed Benlice C, Costedio M, Stocchi L et al (2016) Hand-assisted laparoscopic vs open colectomy: an assessment from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted cohort. Am J Surg 212:808–813CrossRefPubMed
66.
Zurück zum Zitat Farid S, Morris-Stiff G (2013) Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216:1220–1221CrossRefPubMed Farid S, Morris-Stiff G (2013) Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216:1220–1221CrossRefPubMed
67.
Zurück zum Zitat de la Fuente SG (2013) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomies: a word of caution. J Am Coll Surg 216:1218CrossRefPubMed de la Fuente SG (2013) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomies: a word of caution. J Am Coll Surg 216:1218CrossRefPubMed
68.
Zurück zum Zitat Boggi U, Signori S, De Lio N et al (2013) Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 100:917–925CrossRefPubMed Boggi U, Signori S, De Lio N et al (2013) Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 100:917–925CrossRefPubMed
69.
Zurück zum Zitat Casadei R, Ricci C, Taffurelli G et al (2015) Are there preoperative factors related to a “soft pancreas” and are they predictive of pancreatic fistulas after pancreatic resection? Surg Today 45:708–714CrossRefPubMed Casadei R, Ricci C, Taffurelli G et al (2015) Are there preoperative factors related to a “soft pancreas” and are they predictive of pancreatic fistulas after pancreatic resection? Surg Today 45:708–714CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: What is the Best “Choice”? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Non-randomized Comparative Studies
verfasst von
Claudio Ricci
Riccardo Casadei
Giovanni Taffurelli
Carlo Alberto Pacilio
Marco Ricciardiello
Francesco Minni
Publikationsdatum
10.08.2017
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
World Journal of Surgery / Ausgabe 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4180-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2018

World Journal of Surgery 3/2018 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.