A comparison of outcomes between open,laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Background

The advantages and comparison of minimally invasive techniques for pancreaticoduodenectomies have not been fully explored using large national multicenter data.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy

BackgroundRecent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported conflicting results regarding the safety of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the available RCTs concerning the short-term outcomes of LPD versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).MethodsThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, Scopus databases and ClinicalTrials.gov register were searched. Only RCTs published up to February 2019 were eligible for inclusion. Random-effect models were used to summarize the relative risks (RR) and mean differences.Results3 RCTs were identified, including a total number of 114 and 110 patients who underwent LPD and OPD, respectively. The rate of major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) was 29% in LPD vs 31% in OPD group (RR 0.80 (95% CI: 0.36–1.79); p = 0.592). Complication-related mortality occurred in 5% (LPD) vs 4% (OPD) patients (RR 1.22 (95% CI: 0.19–8.02); p = 0.841). LPD was significantly associated with longer operative time [95 min (95% CI: 24–167; p = 0.009)] and lower perioperative blood loss [−151 ml (95% CI: 169–133; p < 0.001)].ConclusionsThere are no statistically significant differences between LPD and OPD in terms of postoperative complications and mortality. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to high clinical and statistical heterogeneity of pooled data. Further studies with different outcome measures are needed to clarify the future of LPD.     

Case-matched comparison of laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer

AIM: To compare shortand long-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed by comparing the outcomes of 54 patients who underwent laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with those of 54 patients who underwent open distal gastrectomy (ODG) between October 2004 and October 2007. The patients’ demographic data (age and gender), date of surgery, extent of lymphadenectomy, and differentiation and tumor-node-metastasis stage of the tumor were examined. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, complications, pathological findings, and follow-up data were compared between the two groups.RESULTS: The mean operative time was significantly longer in the LADG group than in the ODG group (259.3 ± 46.2 min vs 199.8 ± 40.85 min; P < 0.05), whereas intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications were significantly lower (160.2 ± 85.9 mL vs 257.8 ± 151.0 mL; 13.0% vs 24.1%, respectively, P < 0.05). In addition, the time to first flatus, time to initiate oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the LADG group than in the ODG group (3.9 ± 1.4 d vs 4.4 ± 1.5 d; 4.6 ± 1.2 d vs 5.6 ± 2.1 d; and 9.5 ± 2.7 d vs 11.1 ± 4.1 d, respectively; P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the LADG group and ODG group with regard to the number of harvested lymph nodes. The median followup was 60 mo (range, 5-97 mo). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 94.3%, 90.2%, and 76.7%, respectively, in the LADG group and 89.5%, 84.7%, and 82.3%, respectively, in the ODG group. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 98.0%, 91.9%, and 81.1%, respectively, in the LADG group and 91.5%, 86.9%, and 82.1%, respectively, in the ODG group. There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the survival rate. CONCLUSION: LADG is suitable and minimally invasive for treating distal gastric cancer and can achieve si     

Laparoscopic colonic resections versus open surgery: a prospective non-randomized study on 310 unselected cases

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery, particularly for malignancy, is still debated. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the postoperative outcome as well as the short- and medium-term results of laparoscopic surgery compared with those after open conventional surgery. METHODOLOGY: A series of 310 consecutive patients, operated on by the same surgical team, have been included in this study; 150 patients (75% with malignant lesions) underwent laparoscopic surgery, whereas 160 patients (73% with malignant lesions) were treated by open surgery. The treatment modality was selected by the patients after reading the informed consent form. RESULTS: Laparoscopic surgery was technically feasible in 91.4% of cases. Mean operative time for laparoscopic surgery was longer than for open surgery (251 vs. 175 min) (P < 0.001). Mean postoperative hospital stay after laparoscopic surgery was 10.5 days, as compared to 13.3 days after open surgery (P < 0.05). In the laparoscopic surgery group minor complications' rate was 3.6% and compared favorably to the 7.5% observed after open surgery (P = 0.261). No statistically significant difference was observed in the major complications rate (9.4% after laparoscopic surgery and 6.8% after open surgery) and in operative mortality (1.4% for laparoscopic surgery and 0.6% for open surgery). The local recurrence rate was lower after laparoscopic surgery as compared to open surgery: 3% versus 9.2% (P = 0.152), respectively. Mean follow-up was 34.2 months during which time we observed 2 cases of port site recurrence. After implementing adequate prophylactic measures, no parietal implants were observed in the last 80 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for malignancy. Distant site metastases occurred in 11% in both groups. At 36 months cumulative survival probability in laparoscopic surgery completed malignant cases was 0.74% as compared to 0.66% after open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity and mortality were similar in the 2 groups. Laparoscopic patients experienced less pain. A slightly higher incidence of local recurrence was observed in the open surgery group, whereas the percentage of distant site metastases and the cumulative survival probability in the 2 groups were similar. Port site recurrences are a cause of concern but they can be prevented with adequate prophylactic measures. The short- and medium-term results of laparoscopic surgery compared favorably with those of open surgery in this prospective non-randomized study. Long-term oncological result are not known yet. In patients with malignancy prospective randomized trials on larger patient numbers are required.     

A comparative study between open versus laparoscopic Hartmann reversal: A single-center experience and analysis

As one of the most challenging procedures in colorectal surgery, Hartmann reversal (HR) carries a burden of morbidity and mortality. We report our experience and compare open and laparoscopic HR.Between December 2012 and January 2020, 30 patients who underwent Hartmann reversal were reviewed. All patients either received laparoscopic or open reversal.Of the 87 patients who underwent Hartmann operation (HO), 30 patients received HR (Laparoscopic Hartmann Reversal, [LHR], n = 20; Open Hartmann Reversal, Open Hartmann Reversal [OHR], n = 10). There were 15 males and 15 female patients. The mean operation time was 223.8 minutes (range 115–350 minutes) with mean blood loss of 252.5 mL (range 0–700 mL). There was no conversion from LHR to OHR, and there was no ileostomy formation. Mean time to flatus was 5.0 days (range 2–13 days). There were 15 early postoperative complications and 5 late postoperative complications, but only 1 case of grade 3A. No anastomosis leakage was reported.HR is an operation that can be performed safely in well-selected patients. Minimally invasive techniques, such as LHR, is an attractive option resulting in shorter operation time, less blood loss, less pain, and shorter hospital stay.     

Laparoscopic versus conventional open resection of rectal carcinoma： A clinical comparative study

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic resection of rectal carcinoma and to compare the short-term outcome of laparoscopic procedure with conventional open surgery for rectal cancer. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with rectal cancer were included in a prospective non-randomized study. The patients were assigned to laparoscopic (n=18) or open (n=18) colorectal resection. Case selection, surgical technique, and clinical and pathological results were reviewed. RESULTS: The operative time was longer in laparoscopic resection group (LAP) than in open resection group (189+/-18 min vs 146+/-22 min, P<0.05). Intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications were less in LAP resection group than in open resection group. An earlier return of bowel motility was observed after laparoscopic surgery. The overall postoperative morbidity was 5.6% in the LAP resection group and 27.8% in open resection group (P<0.05). No anastomotic leakage was found in both groups. The pathologic examination showed that the length of the resected specimen, the mean number of harvested lymph nodes in laparoscopic resection group were comparable to those in open resection group. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer is a feasible but technically demanding procedure. The present study demonstrates the safety of the procedure, while oncologic results are comparable to the open surgery, with a favorable short-term outcome.     

The benefit of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy compared with conventional open distal gastrectomy: a case-matched control study

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy is a surgical procedure which is safe, useful, and technically feasible for patients with early gastric cancer. The aim of this study is to determine whether laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy is also superior to conventional open distal gastrectomy. METHODOLOGY: The study comprised 27 consecutive patients with early gastric cancer who were admitted to our hospital from 1997 to 2000 and underwent distal gastrectomy. Ten patients underwent laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy; and 17 conventional open distal gastrectomy. RESULTS: Estimated blood loss was 17.7 +/- 12.1 g during laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy, and 250.0 +/- 160.8 g during conventional open distal gastrectomy. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The day of ambulation (2.7 +/- 0.7 vs. 1.0 +/- 0.0), and start of liquid diet (6.9 +/- 1.2 vs. 4.3 +/- 0.5) were significantly delayed in conventional open distal gastrectomy compared with laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (p < 0.001, p < 0.05). At the 3rd postoperative day, the serum C-reactive protein level in laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy decreased significantly more than that in conventional open distal gastrectomy (4.2 +/- 1.7 vs. 9.4 +/- 2.5: p < 0.05). No postoperative complication was found in laparaoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy is a safe and useful operation for most early gastric cancers. Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy has been superior to conventional open distal gastrectomy.     

Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopy-assisted and open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer

AIM:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy(LATG)and open total gastrectomy(OTG)for gastric cancer.METHODS:A comprehensive search of PubMed,Cochrane Library,Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews was performed to identify studies that compared LATG and OTG.The following factors were checked:operating time,blood loss,harvested lymph nodes,flatus time,hospital stay,mortality and morbidity.Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out using RevMan 5.1 software.RESULTS:Nine studies with 1221 participants were included(436 LATG and 785 OTG).Compared to OTG,LATG involved a longer operating time[weighted mean difference(WMD)=57.68 min,95%CI:30.48-84.88;P<0.001];less blood loss[standard mean difference(SMD)=-1.71;95%CI:-2.48--0.49;P<0.001];earlier time to flatus(WMD=-0.76 d;95%CI:-1.22--0.30;P<0.001);shorter hospital stay(WMD=-2.67d;95%CI:-3.96--1.38,P<0.001);and a decrease in medical complications(RR=0.41,95%CI:0.19-0.90,P=0.03).The number of harvested lymph nodes,mortality,surgical complications,cancer recurrence rate and long-term survival rate of patients undergoing LATG were similar to those in patients undergoing OTG.CONCLUSION:Despite a longer operation,LATG can be performed safely in experienced surgical centers with a shorter hospital stay and fewer complications than open surgery.     

Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol on pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of non-randomized and randomized controlled trials

BackgroundEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been widely applied in many surgical specialties. However, with respect to the impact of ERAS on pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), there still exist some controversies.MethodsLiterature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from January, 1990 to July, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effects or random-effects models.ResultsTwenty-two studies containing 4147 patients were identified. The entire pooled data showed that ERAS significantly reduced overall and minor morbidity (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.72–0.88, p < 0.001; RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.69–0.88, p < 0.001, respectively), but didn't affect major morbidity (RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.84–1.13, p = 0.72). ERAS markedly reduced the incidences of delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.55–0.88, p = 0.002), incisional infection (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.60–0.94, p = 0.01) and intra-abdominal infection (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63–1.00, p = 0.05), but didn't influence clinically-relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.73–1.01, p = 0.07). Shorter length of stay (LOS) (WMD: −5.07, 95% CI: −6.71 to −3.43, p < 0.001) was noted in ERAS group, without increasing 30-day readmission (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.86–1.24, p = 0.71) and mortality (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.41–1.21, p = 0.20).ConclusionERAS significantly reduced overall and minor morbidity, incidences of DGE, incisional and intra-abdominal infections, and shortened LOS in PD, without increasing 30-day readmission and mortality. However, more large-scale randomized controlled trials are still needed to confirm the findings.     

手辅助电视胸腔镜食管癌切除术(附45例报告)

目的　证明手辅助电视胸腔镜食管癌切除术能够达到常规三切口开胸手术对淋巴结清扫的要求 ,在手术时间、创伤程度方面更具优越性。方法　施行手辅助电视胸腔镜食管癌切除术 4 5例 (研究组 ) ,同期施行常规开胸手术 4 5例 (对照组 ) ,两组均以 T3N1 M0 期患者为多数。比较两组患者术中淋巴结清扫情况和两组患者围术期情况。结果　研究组与对照组比较 ,手术效果满意。研究组和对照组的食管旁淋巴结分别为 ( 3.5 5± 1.0 1)、( 3.31± 1.5 2 )枚 ,贲门旁淋巴结分别为 ( 1.2 7± 1.0 7)、 ( 1.5 9± 1.0 9)枚 ,胃左动脉周围淋巴结分别为 ( 4 .2 7± 1.4 2 )、 ( 4 .6 8± 2 .10 )枚 ,两组均无显著差异 ( P >0 .0 5 ) ;而纵隔淋巴结清扫分别为 ( 6 .6 4± 3.72 )、 ( 3.82± 2 .4 8)枚 ,以研究组好于对照组 ( P <0 .0 5 )。手术时间分别为 ( 2 8.6 8± 4 .90 )、 ( 5 9.73± 6 .0 6 )分钟 ,胸部失血量分别为 ( 92 .72± 18.5 6 )、 ( 14 5 .0 1± 35 .4 2 ) ml,术后第一天引流量分别为 ( 2 0 1.36± 4 4 .6 5 )、 ( 2 95 .4 5±5 7.2 2 ) ml,两组均有显著差异 ( P <0 .0 0 1)。结论　手辅助电视胸腔镜食管癌切除术能够达到常规三切口开胸手术相同的切除效果 ,且具有手术时间短、创伤小、出血少、疼痛轻、恢复     

Surgical treatment of haemorrhoids with the use of the circular stapler and open haemorrhoidectomy. A comparative study

The surgical treatment of haemorrhoids with the use of a circular stapler is a novel method. A comparative retrospective study of two groups of patients treated surgically for third- and fourth-degree haemorrhoids was conducted. Fifty patients (group A) underwent a surgical intervention with the circular stapler in the rectal mucosa 4 cm above the dentate line. In another group of 50 patients (group B), the standard open haemorrhoidectomy (Milligan-Morgan) was carried out. The new method (group A) compared with the standard haemorrhoidectomy (group B) was found to be less time consuming (mean time, 10±2 minutes vs. 35±5 minutes, p<0.001). The majority of patients (28) in group A experienced mild pain (VAS, 3–5) while pain for the majority of patients in group B was 5–7 on the VAS scale (p<0.01). The duration of postoperative hospitalisation was 1±1 days for the patients of group A and 5±2 days for the patients of group B (p<0.05). The early postoperative bleeding rate was 6% in group A and 12% in group B (p<0.01). None of the patients of group A developed incontinence and 6 (12%) patients in group B developed mild liquid incontinence during the first postoperative month. During the period of follow-up (12 months to 3 years, median length 18 months in outpatient visits), no patient in either group developed recurrence of haemorrhoids or rectal prolapse. In conclusion, the surgical treatment of haemorrhoids with the circular stapler seems to be an efficient alternative to the standard open haemorrhoidectomy when this is indicated. Received: 28 April 2000 / Accepted in revised form: 18 October 2000