Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Propensity-Score Matched Analyses Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomies: A Single-Center Experience

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is being adopted increasingly worldwide. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent MIDP versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

Methods

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent a DP in our institution between 2005 and 2019 was performed. Propensity score matching based on relevant baseline factors was used to match patients in the ODP and MIDP groups in a 1:1 manner. Outcomes reported include operative duration, blood loss, postoperative length of stay, morbidity, mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula rates, reoperation and readmission.

Results

In total, 444 patients were included in this study. Of 122 MIDP patients, 112 (91.8%) could be matched. After matching, the median operating time for MIDP was significantly longer than ODP [260 min (200–346.3) vs 180 (135–232.5), p < 0.001], while postoperative stay for MIDP was significantly shorter [median 6 days (5–8) versus 7 days (6–9), p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences noted in any of the other outcomes measured. Over time, we observed a decrease in the operation times of MIDP performed at our institution.

Conclusion

Adoption of MIDP offers advantages over ODP in terms of a shorter postoperative hospital stay, without an increase in morbidity and/or mortality but at the expense of a longer operation time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gagner M, Pomp A (1994) Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 8(5):408–410

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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(3):237–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Goh BK, Chan CY, Soh HL et al (2017) A comparison between robotic-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Int J Med Robot. 13(1):e1733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aggarwal R, Hance J, Darzi A (2004) Robotics and surgery: a long-term relationship? Int J Surg 2(2):106–109

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Köckerling F (2014) Robotic vs. standard laparoscopic technique–what is better? Front Surg 1:15

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Lof S, van der Heijde N, Abuawwad M et al (2021) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis. Br J Surg 108(2):188–195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chung JC, Kim HC, Song OP (2014) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for benign or borderline malignant pancreatic tumors. Turk J Gastroenterol 25(Suppl 1):162–166

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Huang J, Yadav DK, Xiong C, Sheng Y, Zhou X, Cai X (2019) Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (lspdp) versus open spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (OSPDP): a comparative study. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019:9367868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Limongelli P, Belli A, Russo G et al (2012) Laparoscopic and open surgical treatment of left-sided pancreatic lesions: clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis. Surg Endosc 26(7):1830–1836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mehta SS, Doumane G, Mura T, Nocca D, Fabre JM (2012) Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution case-control study. Surg Endosc 26(2):402–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Stauffer JA, Coppola A, Mody K, Asbun HJ (2016) Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. World J Surg 40(6):1477–1484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vijan SS, Ahmed KA, Harmsen WS et al (2010) Laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution comparative study. Arch Surg 145(7):616–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. de Rooij T, van Hilst J, van Santvoort H et al (2019) Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): a multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 269(1):2–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Björnsson B, Larsson AL, Hjalmarsson C, Gasslander T, Sandström P (2020) Comparison of the duration of hospital stay after laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy: randomized controlled trial. Br J Surg 107(10):1281–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lyu Y, Cheng Y, Wang B, Zhao S, Chen L (2020) Comparison of 3 minimally invasive methods versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 31(1):104–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kwon, J., S.Y. Park, Y. Park, et al. (2020). A comparison of minimally invasive vs open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Propensity score matching analysis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci.

  17. Raoof M, Ituarte PHG, Woo Y et al (2018) Propensity score-matched comparison of oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatic resection. Br J Surg 105(5):578–586

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Klompmaker S et al (2019) Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): a pan-european propensity score matched study. Ann Surg 269(1):10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nakamura M, Wakabayashi G, Miyasaka Y et al (2015) Multicenter comparative study of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy using propensity score-matching. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 22(10):731–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138(1):8–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hartwig W, Vollmer CM, Fingerhut A et al (2014) Extended pancreatectomy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: definition and consensus of the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 156(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, and International Academy of Pathology, Digestive system tumours. 5 ed, ed. D.E. Elder. Vol. 1. 2019: IARC.

  24. Austin PC (2008) A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med 27(12):2037–2049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nakamura M, Nakashima H (2013) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy: is it worthwhile? a meta-analysis of laparoscopic pancreatectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 20(4):421–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nigri GR, Rosman AS, Petrucciani N et al (2011) Metaanalysis of trials comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomies. Surg Endosc 25(5):1642–1651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Venkat R, Edil BH, Schulick RD, Lidor AO, Makary MA, Wolfgang CL (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(6):1048–1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gavriilidis P, Roberts KJ, Sutcliffe RP (2019) Comparison of robotic vs laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy A systematic review and network meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford) 21(10):1268–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lyu, Y., Y. Cheng, B. Wang, S. Zhao, and L. Chen (2020). Assessment of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 1–9.

  30. van Hilst J, de Graaf N, Abu Hilal M, Besselink MG (2021) The landmark series: minimally invasive pancreatic resection. Ann Surg Oncol 28(3):1447–1456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Riviere D, Gurusamy KS, Kooby DA et al (2016) Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4(4):Cd011391

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lee SQ, Kabir T, Koh YX et al (2020) A single institution experience with robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 24(3):283–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Goh BKP, Zeng G, Low TY, Chua DW, Koh YX, Lim KI (2020) Changing trends and outcomes associated with the adoption of minimally-invasive pancreato-biliary surgery: Contemporary experience of a “self-taught” early adopter in Southeast Asia. J Minim Access Surg 16(4):341–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Chan, K.S., Z.K. Wang, N. Syn, and B.K.P. Goh, Learning curve of laparoscopic and robotic pancreas resections: a systematic review. Surgery, 2021.

  35. Goh BKP, Lee SY, Kam JH et al (2018) Evolution of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies at a single institution. J Minim Access Surg 14(2):140–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Søreide K, Olsen F, Nymo LS, Kleive D, Lassen K (2019) A nationwide cohort study of resection rates and short-term outcomes in open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. HPB (Oxford) 21(6):669–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Goh BK, Teo RY (2020) Current status of laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery and its adoption in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singap 49(6):377–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Academia, Level 5, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore

    Jaivikash Raghupathy, Chuan-Yaw Lee, Sarah K. W. Huan, Ye-Xin Koh, Ek-Khoon Tan, Jin-Yao Teo, Peng-Chung Cheow, London L. P. J. Ooi, Alexander Y. F. Chung, Chung-Yip Chan & Brian K. P. Goh

  2. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Jaivikash Raghupathy & Chuan-Yaw Lee

  3. Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Ye-Xin Koh, Ek-Khoon Tan, Jin-Yao Teo, Peng-Chung Cheow, London L. P. J. Ooi, Alexander Y. F. Chung, Chung-Yip Chan & Brian K. P. Goh

  4. Singhealth Duke-NUS Transplant Center, Singapore, Singapore

    Ye-Xin Koh, Ek-Khoon Tan, Peng-Chung Cheow, Alexander Y. F. Chung, Chung-Yip Chan & Brian K. P. Goh

Authors
  1. Jaivikash Raghupathy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chuan-Yaw Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah K. W. Huan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ye-Xin Koh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ek-Khoon Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jin-Yao Teo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Peng-Chung Cheow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. London L. P. J. Ooi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Alexander Y. F. Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Chung-Yip Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Brian K. P. Goh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian K. P. Goh.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raghupathy, J., Lee, CY., Huan, S.K.W. et al. Propensity-Score Matched Analyses Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomies: A Single-Center Experience. World J Surg 46, 207–214 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-021-06306-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-021-06306-x

Search

Navigation