Page 147 - Read Online

Basso et al. Mini-invasive distal pancreatectomy

Our study has several limitations. The main F. Lumachi, A. Patanè, M. Ciocca Vasino, P. Ubiali
one is that it utilized retrospective data, which
may introduce selection bias and allow missing Financial support and sponsorship
information. Demographics, histology, and tumour None.
size were similar in both groups, despite the absence
of randomization. However, the number of patients Conflicts of interest
in our series was low, but all available studies are There are no conflicts of interest.
similar cohort-like or case-control studies from
single centres, with few patients. Unfortunately, no Patient consent
long-term data are available in our series, but a Informed consent was obtained from all patients.
lack of long-term results and follow-up is common,
as a result of the rarity of this type of disease and Ethics approval
heterogeneity of the studies. Particularly, long- The present study is a retrospective review of
term data on recurrence of pancreatic carcinomas anonymized clinical records, and ethical permission
are scarce, and larger comparative studies are was obtained.
needed. [20]
REFERENCES
Rehman et al. found no significant differences
[28]
in 3-year OS between laparoscopic (n = 8) or open 1. Tiwari MM, Reynoso JF, High R, Tsang AW, Oleynikov D. Safety,
efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of common laparoscopic procedures.
(n = 14) distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic Surg Endosc 2011;25:1127-35.
adenocarcinoma (82% vs. 74%). Similarly, Hu et al. 2. Brokelman WJ, Lensvelt M, Borel Rinkes IH, Klinkenbijl JH, Reijnen
[50]
compared 11 LDP and 23 ODP and found a mean OS MM. Peritoneal changes due to laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc
42.0 ± 8.6 months vs. 54.0 ± 5.8 months. The Central 2011;25:1-9.
Pancreas Consortium reported the same median OS 3. Soper NJ, Brunt LM, Dunnegan DL, Meininger TA. Laparoscopic
(16 months) after both procedures, in matched cohorts, distal pancreatectomy in the porcine model. Surg Endosc
1994;8:57-60.
suggesting that oncologic outcomes are similar and 4. Cuschieri A. Laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas. J R Coll Surg
independent of the surgical approach. [6] Edinb 1994;39:178-84.
5. Takaori K, Tanigawa N. Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: the past,
In conclusion, our experience confirms that the present, and future. Surg Today 2007;37:535-45.
minimally invasive surgical treatment of tumours of 6. Kooby DA, Hawkins WG, Schmidt CM, Weber SM, Bentrem DJ,
the distal pancreas is safe and feasible. Laparoscopic Gillespie TW, Sellers JB, Merchant NB, Scoggins CR, Martin RC
pancreatectomy offers several advantages compared 3rd, Kim HJ, Ahmad S, Cho CS, Parikh AA, Chu CK, Hamilton
NA, Doyle CJ, Pinchot S, Hayman A, McClaine R, Nakeeb A,
with open surgery, including a significant reduction Staley CA, McMasters KM, Lillemoe KD. A multicenter analysis of
of estimated blood loss, reduced postoperative pain distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma: is laparoscopic resection
intensity, and earlier bowel canalization. However, appropriate? J Am Coll Surg 2010;210:779-85.
implementation of minimally invasive pancreatectomy 7. Rutz DR, Squires MH, Maithel SK, Sarmiento JM, Etra JW, Perez
requires specific skills and adequate training, both SD, Knechtle W, Cardona K, Russell MC, Staley CA 3rd, Sweeney
in advanced laparoscopic surgery and in pancreatic JF, Kooby DA. Cost comparison analysis of open versus laparoscopic
surgery. Additional research and adequate RCTs are 8. distal pancreatectomy. HPB 2014;16:907-14.
ASA Physical Status Classification System. Last approved by the
needed before the technique can be considered the ASA House of Delegates on October 15, 2014. Available at: https://
“gold-standard” for distal pancreatectomies, to assess www.asahq.org/resources/clinical-information/asa-physical-status-
oncologic results and long-term outcomes. Finally, the classification-system. [Last accessed on May 31, 2017]
costs of laparoscopic surgery should be carefully re- 9. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J,
evaluated before concluding that they are greater than Neoptolemos J, Sarr M, Traverso W, Buchler M; International Study
those of open surgery. Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition. Postoperative pancreatic
fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery
2005;138:8-13.
Authors’ contributions 10. Kehlet H, Wilmore DW. Multimodal strategies to improve surgical
Designed the study: S.M.M. Basso, P. Ubiali outcome. Am J Surg 2002;183:630-41.
Acquired the data: F. Maffeis, A. Patanè 11. Taylor C, O’Rourke N, Nathanson L, Martin I, Hopkins G, Layani
Analyzed and interpreted the results: S.M.M. Basso, F. L, Ghusn M, Fielding G. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: the
Maffeis, F. Lumachi Brisbane experience of forty-six cases. HPB (Oxford) 2008;10:38-42.
Drafted the manuscript: S.M.M. Basso 12. Tran Cao HS, Lopez N, Chang DC, Lowy AM, Bouvet M,
Baumgartner JM, Talamini MA, Sicklick JK. Improved perioperative
Revised the manuscript: S.M.M. Basso, F. Lumachi, M. outcomes with minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: results from
Ciocca Vasino, P. Ubiali a population-based analysis. JAMA Surg 2014;149:237-43.
Approved the final version: S.M.M. Basso, F. Maffeis, 13. Joliat GR, Demartines N, Halkic N, Petermann D, Schafer M.
140 Mini-invasive Surgery ¦ Volume 1 ¦ September 30