Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Pathological Radicality between Open and Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in a Tertiary Centre

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remained a formidable challenge owing to retroperitoneal location, difficult dissection near great vessels and critical intracorporeal anastomoses. Recent reviews of literature have established the feasibility and comparable short term outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) with that of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). This study was undertaken to compare the pathological radicality of LPD with OPD. A prospective database of all patients who underwent standard pancreaticoduodenectomy from Mar 2006 to Feb 2011 was taken up for this study. 45 patients who underwent LPD and 118 patients who underwent OPD for periampullary and pancreatic head malignancy were taken up for analysis. The study groups were comparable in terms of age of presentation, ASA grades, comorbidity, type of surgery and BMI. There was no statistically significant difference with regard to tumor size, lymph node yield, node positivity rates, R1 rates and margin lengths. The pathological radicality of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy is comparable with that of open approach when performed by experienced minimal-access surgeons. Standardized protocols for evaluation of the resection margins should be mandatory in studies reporting outcomes of pancreaticoduodectomy.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kooby DA, Chu CK (2010) Laparoscopic management of pancreatic malignancies. Surg Clin N Am 90(2):427–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cuschieri A (1994) Laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas. J R Coll Surg Edinb 39(3):178–184

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Palanivelu C et al (2007) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: technique and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 205(2):222–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Palanivelu C et al (2009) Evolution in techniques of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a decade long experience from a tertiary center. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16(6):731–740

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gagner M, Palermo M (2009) Laparoscopic whipple procedure: review of the literature. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16(6):726–730

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gumbs AA et al (2011) Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a review of 285 published cases. Ann Surg Oncol 18(5):1335–1341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Correa-Gallego C et al (2014) Minimally-invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg 218(1):129–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pedrazzoli S et al (1999) A surgical and pathological based classification of resective treatment of pancreatic cancer. Summary of an international workshop on surgical procedures in pancreatic cancer. Dig Surg 16(4):337–345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Compton CC, Henson DE (1997) Protocol for the examination of specimens removed from patients with carcinoma of the exocrine pancreas: a basis for checklists. Cancer Committee, College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 121(11):1129–1136

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yeo CJ et al (2002) Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without distal gastrectomy and extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma, part 2: randomized controlled trial evaluating survival, morbidity, and mortality. Ann Surg 236(3):355–366

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Farnell MB et al (2005) A prospective randomized trial comparing standard pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatoduodenectomy with extended lymphadenectomy in resectable pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. Surgery 138(4):618–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pedrazzoli S et al (1998) Standard versus extended lymphadenectomy associated with pancreatoduodenectomy in the surgical treatment of adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas: a multicenter, prospective, randomized study. Lymphadenectomy study group. Ann Surg 228(4):508–517

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Menon KV et al (2009) Impact of margin status on survival following pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer: the leeds pathology protocol (LEEPP). HPB 11(1):18–24

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Butturini G et al (2008) Influence of resection margins and treatment on survival in patients with pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Surg 143(1):75–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rowsell C et al (2007) Improved lymph node retrieval in Whipple specimens as a result of implementation of a new uncinate margin protocol. HPB 9(5):388–391

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Raut CP et al (2007) Impact of resection status on pattern of failure and survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 246(1):52–60

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gem Hospital and Research Centre, Minimal Access and HPB Surgery Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, 641045, India

    Palanisamy Senthilnathan, Palanivelu Chinnusamy, Alwar Ramanujam, Srivatsan Gurumurthy Sivakumar, Anand Vijai Natesan, C. Chandramaliteeswaran, Praveen Raj Palanivelu, Parthasarathi Ramakrishnan & Rajapandian Subbiah

Authors
  1. Palanisamy Senthilnathan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Palanivelu Chinnusamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alwar Ramanujam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Srivatsan Gurumurthy Sivakumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anand Vijai Natesan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Chandramaliteeswaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Praveen Raj Palanivelu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Parthasarathi Ramakrishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Rajapandian Subbiah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Palanisamy Senthilnathan.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 29 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Senthilnathan, P., Chinnusamy, P., Ramanujam, A. et al. Comparison of Pathological Radicality between Open and Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in a Tertiary Centre. Indian J Surg Oncol 6, 20–25 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-014-0372-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-014-0372-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation