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
Outcome of Minimally Invasive and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients with Intestinal- and Pancreatobiliary Subtype Ampullary Cancer
Department of Surgery, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy; Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2479-2092
Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Surgery, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy.
Division of Oncologic and Mini-invasive General Surgery, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Show others and affiliations
2024 (English)In: Annals of Surgery, ISSN 0003-4932, E-ISSN 1528-1140Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

 Objective:  To compare minimally invasive and open pancreatoduodenectomy in different subtypes of ampullary adenocarcinoma.

 Summary background data:  Ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC) is widely seen as the best indication for minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) due to the lack of vascular involvement and dilated bile and pancreatic duct. However, it is unknown whether outcomes of MIPD for AAC differ between the pancreatobiliary (AAC-PB) and intestinal (AAC-IT) subtypes as large studies are lacking.

 Methods:  This is an international cohort study, encompassing 27 centers from 12 countries. Outcome of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were compared in patients with AAC-IT and AAC-PB. Primary end points were R1 rate, lymph node yield, and 5-year overall survival (5yOS).

 Results:  Overall, 1187 patients after MIPD for AAC were included, of whom 572 with AAC-IT (62 MIPD, 510 OPD) and 615 with AAC-PB (41 MIPD and 574 OPD). The rate of R1 resection was not significantly different between MIPD and OPD for both AAC-IT (3.4% vs 6.9%, P=0,425) and AAC-PB (9.8% vs 14.9%, P=0,625). AAC-IT, more lymph nodes were resected with MIPD group (19 vs 16, P=0.007), compared to OPD. The 5y-OS did not differ after MIPD and OPD for both AAC-IT (56.8% vs 59.5%, P=0.827 and AAC-PB (52.5% vs 44.4%, P=0.357). The rates of surgical complication between MIPD and OPD did not differ between AmpIT and AmpPB.

 Discussion:  This international multicenter study found no differences in outcomes between MIPD and OPD for AAC-IT and AAC-PB. MIPD and OPD demonstrated comparable outcomes in oncological resection, survival and surgical outcomes for both subtypes of AAC.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) , 2024.
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-215576DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000006515PubMedID: 39219532Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85203045716OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-215576DiVA, id: diva2:1976582
Available from: 2025-06-25 Created: 2025-06-25 Last updated: 2025-06-25

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Uijterwijk, Bas A.Björnsson, Bergthor
By organisation
Division of Surgery, Orthopedics and OncologyFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesDepartment of Surgery in Linköping
In the same journal
Annals of Surgery
Surgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 33 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