Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 273–280 | Cite as

Defining Quality for Distal Pancreatectomy: Does the Laparoscopic Approach Protect Patients from Poor Quality Outcomes?

  • Marshall S. Baker
  • Karen L. Sherman
  • Susan Stocker
  • Amanda V. Hayman
  • David J. Bentrem
  • Richard A. Prinz
  • Mark S. Talamonti
2012 SSAT Poster Presentation



Established systems for grading postoperative complications do not change the assigned grade when multiple interventions or readmissions are required to manage a complication. Studies using these systems may misrepresent outcomes for the surgical procedures being evaluated. We define a quality outcome for distal pancreatectomy (DP) and use this metric to compare laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).


Records for patients undergoing DP between January 2006 and December 2009 were reviewed. Clavien–Dindo grade IIIb, IV, and V complications were classified as severe adverse—poor quality—postoperative outcomes (SAPOs). II and IIIa complications requiring either significantly prolonged overall lengths of stay including readmissions within 90 days or more than one invasive intervention were also classified as SAPOs.


By Clavien–Dindo system alone, 91 % of DP patients had either no complication or a low/moderate grade (I, II, IIIa) complication. Using our reclassification, however, 25 % had a SAPO. Patients undergoing LDP demonstrated a Clavien–Dindo complication profile identical to that for SDP but demonstrated significantly shorter overall lengths of stay, were less likely to require perioperative transfusion, and less likely to have a SAPO.


Established systems undergrade the severity of some complications following DP. Using a procedure-specific metric for quality, we demonstrate that LDP affords a higher quality postoperative outcome than ODP.


Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy Open distal pancreatectomy Surgical complications Quality 


  1. 1.
    Lillemoe KD, Kaushal S, Cameron JL, et al. Distal Pancreatectomy: Indications and Outcomes in 235 Patients. Ann Surg 1999; 229: 693–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campell KA, et al. 1423 Pancreaticoduodenectomies for Pancreatic Cancer: A Single-Institution Experience. J Gastrointest Surg 2006; 10: 1199 – 1211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yermilov I, Bentrem D, Sekeris E, et al. Readmissions Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreas Cancer: A Population-Based Appraisal. Ann Surg Oncol 2009; 16: 554–561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baker MS, Bentrem DJ, Ujiki MB, et al. A prospective single institution comparison of peri-operative outcomes for laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. Surgery 2009; 146: 635–645.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eom BW, Jang JY, Lee SE, et al. Clinical outcomes compared between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc 2008; 22: 1334–1338.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vijan SS, Ahmed KA, Harmsen WS, et al. Laparoscopic vs. Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Institution Comparative Study. Arch Surg 2010: 145(7) 616–621.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kooby DA, Hawkin WG, Schmidt CM, et al. A Multicenter Analysis of Distal Pancreatectomy for Adenocarcinoma: Is Laparoscopic Resection Appropriate? J Am Coll Surg 2010; 210: 779–787.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kooby DA, Gillespi T, Bentrem D. Left-Sided Pancreatectomy. A Multicenter Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Approaches. Ann Surg 2008; 248: 438 – 446.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fox AM, Pitzu K, Bhojani F, et al. Comparison of outcomes and costs between laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open resection at a single center. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 1220–1230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: An international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 2005; 138: 8–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baker MS, Bentrem DJ, Ujiki MB, et al. Adding days spent in readmission to the initial postoperative length of stay limits the perceived benefit of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy when compared to open distal pancreatectomy. Am J Surg 2011; 201: 295–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dindo D, Demartines N and Clavien PA. Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal with Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of Survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 205–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M, et al. Assessment of Complications After Pancreatic Surgery: A Novel Grading System Applied to 633 Patients Undergoing Pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 2006; 244: 931–939.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications: Five-Year Experience. Ann Surg 2009; 250: 187–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strasberg SM, Linehan DC, Hawkins WG. The Accordion Severity Grading System of Surgical Complications. Ann Surg 2009: 250: 177–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Melotti G, Butturini G, Piccoli M, et al. Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: Results on a Consecutive Series of 58 patients. Ann Surg 2007; 246: 77–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fernandez-Cruz L, Cosa R, Blanco L, et al. Curative Laparoscopic Resection for Pancreatic Neoplasms: A Critical Analysis from a Single Institution. J Gastrointest Surg 2007; 11: 1607–1622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marshall S. Baker
    • 1
  • Karen L. Sherman
    • 2
  • Susan Stocker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Amanda V. Hayman
    • 2
  • David J. Bentrem
    • 2
  • Richard A. Prinz
    • 1
  • Mark S. Talamonti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryNorthShore University Health CenterEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Northwestern UniversityFeinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations