scholarly journals Comparison of Minimally Invasive versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 982 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaewoo Kwon ◽  
Ki Byung Song ◽  
Seo Young Park ◽  
Dakyum Shin ◽  
Sarang Hong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Propensity Score Matching Analysis ◽  
Oncological Outcomes ◽  
Hospital Stays

Background: Few studies have compared perioperative and oncological outcomes between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: A retrospective review of patients undergoing MIPD and OPD for PDAC from January 2011 to December 2017 was performed. Perioperative, oncological, and survival outcomes were analyzed before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Results: Data from 1048 patients were evaluated (76 MIPD, 972 OPD). After PSM, 73 patients undergoing MIPD were matched with 219 patients undergoing OPD. Operation times were longer for MIPD than OPD (392 vs. 327 min, p < 0.001). Postoperative hospital stays were shorter for MIPD patients than OPD patients (12.4 vs. 14.2 days, p = 0.040). The rate of overall complications and postoperative pancreatic fistula did not differ between the two groups. Adjuvant treatment rates were higher following MIPD (80.8% vs. 59.8%, p = 0.002). With the exception of perineural invasion, no differences were seen between the two groups in pathological outcomes. The median overall survival and disease-free survival rates did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: MIPD showed shorter postoperative hospital stays and comparable perioperative and oncological outcomes to OPD for selected PDAC patients. Future randomized studies will be required to validate these findings.

scholarly journals Propensity score-matching analysis comparing laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Heeji Shin ◽  
Ki Byung Song ◽  
Young Il Kim ◽  
Young-Joo Lee ◽  
Dae Wook Hwang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Propensity Score Matching Analysis ◽  
Oncological Outcomes ◽  
Pancreatic Fistulas ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Abstract There is little evidence on the safety and benefits of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients; therefore, we evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of this procedure by comparing perioperative and oncological outcomes between LPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in elderly patients. We retrospectively reviewed the data of 1,693 patients who underwent PD to manage periampullary tumours at a single institution between January 2014 and June 2017. Of these patients, 326 were elderly patients aged ≥70 years, with 56 patients allocated to the LPD group and 270 to the OPD group. One-to-one propensity score matching (56:56) was used to match the baseline characteristics of patients who underwent LPD and OPD. LPD was associated with significantly fewer clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (7.1% vs. 21.4%), fewer analgesic injections (10 vs. 15.6 times; p = 0.022), and longer operative time (321.8 vs. 268.5 minutes; p = 0.001) than OPD in elderly patients. There were no significant differences in 3-year overall and disease-free survival rates between the LPD and OPD groups. LPD had acceptable perioperative and oncological outcomes compared with OPD in elderly patients. LPD is a reliable treatment option for elderly patients with periampullary tumours.

Effect of surgical start time on short- and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: a propensity-score matching analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Bao ◽  
Xiao-Long Zhao ◽  
Kun-Kun Li ◽  
Ying-Jian Wang ◽  
Wei Guo
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Start Time ◽  
Short And Long Term ◽  
Mckeown Esophagectomy

Summary There is growing focus on the relationship between surgical start time and postoperative outcomes. However, the extent to which the operation start time affects the surgical and oncological outcomes of patients undergoing esophagectomy has not previously been studied. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the potential effect of surgical start time on the short- and long-term outcomes for patients who underwent thoracoscopic–laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy. From September 2009 to June 2019, a total of 700 consecutive patients suffering from esophageal cancer underwent thoracoscopic–laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at Daping Hospital. Among these patients, 166 esophagectomies were performed on the same day and were classified as the first- or second-start group. Patients in the first-start group were more likely to be older than those in the second-start group: (64.73 vs. 61.28, P = 0.002). In addition, patients with diabetes mellitus were more likely to be first-start cases (8.4 vs. 1.2%). After propensity score matching (52 matched patients in first-start cases and 52 matched patients in second-start cases), these findings were no longer statistically significant. There was no difference in the incidence rate of peri- or postoperative adverse events between the first- and second-start groups. The disease-specific survival rates and disease-free survival rates were comparable between the two groups (P = 0.236 and 0.292, respectively). On the basis of the present results, a later start time does not negatively affect the short- or long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document