3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Multicentre observational cohort study of implementation and outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy (LEOPARD)

          This trial followed a structured nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), according to the IDEAL framework for surgical innovation, and aimed to compare time to functional recovery after minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

            To compare laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) by using meta-analytical techniques. LDP is increasingly performed as an alternative approach for distal pancreatectomy in selected patients. Multiple studies have tried to assess the safety and efficacy of LDP compared with ODP. A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies comparing LDP and ODP. Intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, oncologic safety, and postoperative complications were evaluated. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Eighteen studies matched the selection criteria, including 1814 patients (43% laparoscopic, 57% open). LDP had lower blood loss by 355 mL (P < 0.001) and hospital length of stay by 4.0 days (P < 0.001). Overall complications were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (33.9% vs 44.2%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.95), as was surgical site infection (2.9% vs 8.1%; OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.24-0.82). There was no difference in operative time, margin positivity, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, and mortality. LDP has lower blood loss and reduced length of hospital stay. There was a lower risk of overall postoperative complications and wound infection, without a substantial increase in the operative time. Although a thorough evaluation of oncological outcomes was not possible, the rate of margin positivity was comparable to the open technique. The improved complication profile of LDP, taken together with the lack of compromise of margin status, suggests that this technique is a reasonable approach in selected cancer patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              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.

              Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is regarded as a feasible and safe surgical alternative to open distal pancreatectomy for lesions of the pancreatic tail and body. The aim of the present systematic review was to provide recommendations for clinical practice and research on the basis of surgical morbidity, such as pancreas fistula, delayed gastric empting, safety, and clinical significance of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for malignant and nonmalignant diseases of the pancreas.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BJS
                Br J Surg
                Wiley
                0007-1323
                1365-2168
                October 18 2019
                November 2019
                August 27 2019
                November 2019
                : 106
                : 12
                : 1657-1665
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of SurgeryUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Southampton UK
                [2 ]Department of SurgeryMorriston Hospital Swansea UK
                [3 ]Department of SurgeryUniversity of Manchester and Salford University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Manchester UK
                [4 ]Department of SurgeryPlymouth Hospitals NHS Trust Plymouth UK
                [5 ]Department of SurgeryRoyal Stoke University Hospital Stoke‐on‐Trent UK
                [6 ]Hepatopancreatobiliary and Liver Transplant UnitRoyal Free London London UK
                [7 ]Department of SurgeryNewcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Newcastle upon Tyne UK
                [8 ]Department of SurgeryNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust Nottingham UK
                [9 ]Department of SurgeryUniversity Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust Coventry UK
                [10 ]Department of SurgeryOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Oxford UK
                [11 ]Department of SurgeryUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham UK
                Article
                10.1002/bjs.11292
                31454072
                335df0c4-9fc3-4d72-964f-889bf6243e94
                © 2019

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article