Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy—systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose The purpose of this systematic review was to compare minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) by using meta-analytical techniques. Methodology Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. Data from included studies w...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Langenbeck's archives of surgery 2017-08, Vol.402 (5), p.841-851
Main Authors: Pędziwiatr, Michał, Małczak, Piotr, Pisarska, Magdalena, Major, Piotr, Wysocki, Michał, Stefura, Tomasz, Budzyński, Andrzej
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Abdominal Surgery
Cardiac Surgery
General Surgery
Humans
Laparoscopy - methods
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods
Pancreaticoduodenectomy - methods
Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
Thoracic Surgery
Traumatic Surgery
Vascular Surgery
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose The purpose of this systematic review was to compare minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) by using meta-analytical techniques. Methodology Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. Data from included studies were extracted for the following outcomes: operative time, overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, blood loss, postoperative hemorrhage, yield of harvested lymph nodes, R1 rate, length of hospital stay, and readmissions. Random and fix effect meta-analyses were undertaken. Results Initial reference search yielded 747 articles. Thorough evaluation resulted in 12 papers, which were analyzed. The total number of patients was 2186 (705 in MIPD group and 1481 in OPD). Although there were no differences in overall morbidity between groups, we noticed reduced blood loss, delayed gastric emptying, and length of hospital stay in favor of MIPD. In contrary, meta-analysis of operative time revealed significant differences in favor of open procedures. Remaining parameters did not differ among groups. Conclusion Our review suggests that although MIPD takes longer, it may be associated with reduced blood loss, shortened LOS, and comparable rate of perioperative complications. Due to heterogeneity of included studies and differences in baseline characteristics between analyzed groups, the analysis of short-term oncological outcomes does not allow drawing unequivocal conclusions.
ISSN:1435-2443
1435-2451
DOI:10.1007/s00423-017-1583-8