World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 39, Issue 10, pp 2564–2572 | Cite as

Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy for Cancer: Short-Term Oncologic Outcomes in 1733 Patients

  • Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam
  • Kingshuk Choudhury
  • Paolo Goffredo
  • Shelby D. Reed
  • Dan BlazerIII
  • Sanziana A. Roman
  • Julie A. Sosa
Original Scientific Report

Abstract

Background

Data from high-volume institutions suggest that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) provides favorable perioperative outcomes and adequate oncologic resection for pancreatic cancer; however, these outcomes may not be generalizable. This study examines patterns of use and short-term outcomes from MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the United States.

Methods

Adult patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were identified from the National Cancer Database, 2010–2011. Multivariable modeling was applied to compare short-term outcomes from MIDP versus ODP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Results

1733 patients met inclusion criteria: 535 (31 %) had MIDP and 1198 (69 %) ODP. Use of MIDP increased 43 % between 2010 and 2011; the conversion rate from MIDP to ODP was 23 %. MIDP cases were performed at 215 hospitals, with 85 % of hospitals performing <10 cases overall. After adjustment, pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients undergoing MIDP versus ODP had a similar likelihood of complete resection (OR 1.48, p = 0.10), number of lymph nodes removed (RR 1.01, p = 0.91), and 30-day readmission rate (OR 1.02, p = 0.96); however, length of stay was shorter (RR 0.84, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Use of MIDP for cancer is increasing, with most centers performing a low volume of these procedures. Use of MIDP for body and tail pancreatic adenocarcinoma appears to have short-term outcomes that are similar to those of open procedures with the benefit of a shorter hospital stay. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed.

References

  1. 1.
    Jacobs JK, Goldstein RE, Geer RJ (1997) Laparoscopic adrenalectomy. A new standard of care. Ann Surg 225:495–501; (discussion 501–492)PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Steiner CA, Bass EB, Talamini MA et al (1994) Surgical rates and operative mortality for open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Maryland. N Engl J Med 330:403–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biondi A, Grosso G, Mistretta A et al (2013) Laparoscopic vs. open approach for colorectal cancer: evolution over time of minimal invasive surgery. BMC Surg 13(Suppl 2):S12PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Juo YY, Hyder O, Haider AH et al (2014) Is minimally invasive colon resection better than traditional approaches? First comprehensive national examination with propensity score matching. JAMA Surg 149:177–184PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gagner M, Pomp A (1994) Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 8:408–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kooby DA, Gillespie T, Bentrem D et al (2008) Left-sided pancreatectomy: a multicenter comparison of laparoscopic and open approaches. Ann Surg 248:438–446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Velanovich V (2006) Case-control comparison of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 10:95–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee SY, Allen PJ, Sadot E et al (2015) Distal pancreatectomy: A single institution’s experience in open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches. J Am Coll Surg 220:18–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gagner M, Pomp A (1997) Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: Is it worthwhile? J Gastrointest Surg 1:20–25; (discussion 25–26) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Venkat R, Edil BH, Schulick RD et al (2012) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 255:1048–1059CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Magge D, Gooding W, Choudry H et al (2013) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma. JAMA Surg 148:525–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tran Cao HS, Lopez N, Chang DC et al (2014) Improved perioperative outcomes with minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: results from a population-based analysis. JAMA Surg 149:237–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosales-Velderrain A, Bowers SP, Goldberg RF et al (2012) National trends in resection of the distal pancreas. World J Gastroenterol 18:4342–4349PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Adam MA, Choudhury K, Dinan MA et al (2015) Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer. Ann Surg. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001055 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    American College of Surgeons: Cancer Programs. Cancer Data & Statistics. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer/ncdb. Accessed 1 Feb 2015
  16. 16.
    Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA (1992) Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 45:613–619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hilbe J (2011) Negative binomial regression. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    La Torre M, Nigri G, Ferrari L et al (2012) Hospital volume, margin status, and long-term survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Am Surg 78:225–229PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sosa JA, Bowman HM, Gordon TA et al (1998) Importance of hospital volume in the overall management of pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg 228:429–438PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fox AM, Pitzul K et al (2012) Comparison of outcomes and costs between laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open resection at a single center. Surg Endosc 26(5):1220–1230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: pancreatic adenocarcinoma. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/pancreatic.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2015

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam
    • 1
  • Kingshuk Choudhury
    • 2
  • Paolo Goffredo
    • 3
  • Shelby D. Reed
    • 3
  • Dan BlazerIII
    • 4
  • Sanziana A. Roman
    • 1
  • Julie A. Sosa
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Section of Endocrine Surgery, Department of SurgeryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Duke Clinical Research InstituteDurhamUSA
  4. 4.Division of Advanced GI and Oncologic Surgery, Department of SurgeryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations