Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy
| Autor: | Michael L. Kendrick, Jony van Hilst, Ugo Boggi, Thijs de Rooij, R. Matthew Walsh, Herbert J. Zeh, Steven J. Hughes, Yoshiharu Nakamura, Charles M. Vollmer, David A. Kooby, Horacio J. Asbun, Jeffrey Barkun, Marc GH. Besselink, Kevin CP. Conlon, Ho-Seong Han, Paul D. Hansen, Andre L. Montagnini, C. Palanivelu, Bård I. Røsok, Shailesh V. Shrikhande, Go Wakabayashi, Herbert Zeh |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Other departments, Surgery, APH - Methodology, AGEM - Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2017 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
MEDLINE 030230 surgery law.invention Pancreaticoduodenectomy 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Postoperative Complications Randomized controlled trial Robotic Surgical Procedures law Risk Factors Medicine Humans Intensive care medicine Pancreatic resection Evidence-Based Medicine Hepatology business.industry Benchmarking Congresses as Topic Treatment Outcome Laparoscopy Gastroenterology Evidence-based medicine Perioperative Comparative trial Surgery 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Observational study business Hospital stay |
| Zdroj: | HPB: The official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association, 19(3), 215-224. John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
| ISSN: | 1365-182X |
| Popis: | Background Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. The aim was to conduct an assessment of the best-evidence and expert opinion on the current status and future challenges of MIPD. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed and best-evidence presented at a State-of-the-Art conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection. Expert panel discussion and audience response activity was used to assess perceived value and future direction. Results From 582 studies, 26 comparative trials of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were assessed for perioperative outcomes. There were no randomized controlled trials and all available comparative studies were determined of low quality. Several observational and case-matched studies demonstrate longer operative times, but less estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay for MIPD. Registry-based studies demonstrate increased mortality rates after MIPD in low-volume centers. Oncologic assessment demonstrates comparable outcomes of MIPD. Expert opinion supports ongoing evaluation of MIPD. Conclusion MIPD appears to provide similar perioperative and oncologic outcomes in selected patients, when performed at experienced, high-volume centers. Its overall role in pancreatoduodenectomy needs to be better defined. Improved training opportunities, registry participation and prospective evaluation are needed. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|