liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Laparoscopic versus open extended radical left pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an international propensity-score matched study
Univ Amsterdam, Netherlands; Univ Verona Hosp Trust, Italy.
Univ Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Univ Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Univ Amsterdam, Netherlands; Univ Hosp Southampton NHS Fdn Trust, England.
Show others and affiliations
2021 (English)In: Surgical Endoscopy, ISSN 0930-2794, E-ISSN 1432-2218, Vol. 35, no 12, p. 6949-6959Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background A radical left pancreatectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) may require extended, multivisceral resections. The role of a laparoscopic approach in extended radical left pancreatectomy (ERLP) is unclear since comparative studies are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after laparoscopic vs open ERLP in patients with PDAC. Methods An international multicenter propensity-score matched study including patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open ERLP (L-ERLP; O-ERLP) for PDAC was performed (2007-2015). The ISGPS definition for extended resection was used. Primary outcomes were overall survival, margin negative rate (R0), and lymph node retrieval. Results Between 2007 and 2015, 320 patients underwent ERLP in 34 centers from 12 countries (65 L-ERLP vs. 255 O-ERLP). After propensity-score matching, 44 L-ERLP could be matched to 44 O-ERLP. In the matched cohort, the conversion rate in L-ERLP group was 35%. The L-ERLP R0 resection rate (matched cohort) was comparable to O-ERLP (67% vs 48%; P = 0.063) but the lymph node yield was lower for L-ERLP than O-ERLP (median 11 vs 19, P = 0.023). L-ERLP was associated with less delayed gastric emptying (0% vs 16%, P = 0.006) and shorter hospital stay (median 9 vs 13 days, P = 0.005), as compared to O-ERLP. Outcomes were comparable for additional organ resections, vascular resections (besides splenic vessels), Clavien-Dindo grade >= III complications, or 90-day mortality (2% vs 2%, P = 0.973). The median overall survival was comparable between both groups (19 vs 20 months, P = 0.571). Conversion did not worsen outcomes in L-ERLP. Conclusion The laparoscopic approach may be used safely in selected patients requiring ERLP for PDAC, since morbidity, mortality, and overall survival seem comparable, as compared to O-ERLP. L-ERLP is associated with a high conversion rate and reduced lymph node yield but also with less delayed gastric emptying and a shorter hospital stay, as compared to O-ERLP.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
SPRINGER , 2021. Vol. 35, no 12, p. 6949-6959
Keywords [en]
Left pancreatectomy; Extended resection; ERLP; PDAC
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-173022DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-08206-yISI: 000604844600001PubMedID: 33398565OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-173022DiVA, id: diva2:1522874
Available from: 2021-01-27 Created: 2021-01-27 Last updated: 2022-03-17

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Björnsson, Bergthor
By organisation
Division of Surgery, Orthopedics and OncologyFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesDepartment of Surgery in Linköping
In the same journal
Surgical Endoscopy
Surgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 88 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf