Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery. Issue 1 (December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chen, Ke; Pan, Yu; Liu, Xiao-long; Jiang, Guang-yi; Wu, Di; Maher, Hendi; Cai, Xiu-jun
• Is Part Of: BMC gastroenterology. Volume 17:Issue 1(2017)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 15
• Publication Date: 2017-12
• Subjects: Laparoscopy -- Robot -- Minimally invasive -- Pancreaticoduodenectomy -- Morbidity -- Review -- Meta-analysis; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Gastrointestinal Diseases -- Periodicals; Biliary Tract Diseases -- Periodicals; Molecular Biology -- Periodicals; Liver Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.33005
• DOI: 10.1186/s12876-017-0691-9
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1471-230X

Abstract

Abstract Background Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear. Methods Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis. Results One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = −0.54 ml; 95% CI, −0.88 ~ −0.20 ml;P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = −3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ −2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes. Conclusion Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.