Advertisement

Advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and matched studies

Published:December 21, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2022.11.029

      Abstract

      Background

      We sought to provide a meta-analysis and credibility assessment of available randomized controlled trials and propensity score matched studies when assessing early and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy.

      Methods

      The MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for pertinent literature up to June 2022. Random-effect meta-analyses were applied. Trial sequential analysis was applied to verify whether results were true- or false-positive or -negative findings.

      Results

      Thirteen studies were identified (2 randomized controlled trials and 11 propensity score matched studies). The early outcomes were assessed on 12 studies, including 4,346 patients. In this population, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy decreased postoperative stay (mean difference = 1.8 days; P = .001) and estimated blood loss (mean difference = 148 mL; P = .001), and trial sequential analysis confirmed these as true-positive findings. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy had similar operating times (P = .165), and trial sequential analysis confirmed this as a true-negative finding. Major morbidity, mortality, and readmission were similar, but results were inconclusive by trial sequential analysis. Oncologic outcomes were assessed on 5 studies, including 2,430 patients. In this population, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy showed higher R0 resection rate (OR = 1.46; P = .001) and shorter time to adjuvant therapy (mean difference 4.0 days P = .003). A survival benefit was observed at 1 year after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (OR = 1.45; P = .001), which was not confirmed at 3 years (P = .650).

      Conclusion

      Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is superior to open distal pancreatectomy for most of the early outcomes analyzed. The operating time was equalized as a result of the learning curve. Results from patients with pancreatic cancer suggest at least an oncologic noninferiority of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • de Rooij T.
        • van Hilst J.
        • van Santvoort H.
        • et al.
        Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): a multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial.
        Ann Surg. 2019; 269: 2-9
        • Björnsson B.
        • Larsson A.L.
        • Hjalmarsson C.
        • Gasslander T.
        • Sandström P.
        Comparison of the duration of hospital stay after laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy: randomized controlled trial.
        Br J Surg. 2020; 107: 1281-1288
        • Rosenbaum P.R.
        • Rubin D.B.
        The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects.
        Biometrika. 1983; 70: 41-55
        • Nakamura M.
        • Wakabayashi G.
        • Miyasaka Y.
        • et al.
        Multicenter comparative study of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy using propensity score-matching.
        J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2015; 22: 731-736
        • van Hilst J.
        • de Rooij T.
        • Klompmaker S.
        • et al.
        Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): a pan-European propensity score matched study.
        Ann Surg. 2019; 269: 10-17
        • Raoof M.
        • Ituarte P.H.G.
        • Woo Y.
        • et al.
        Propensity score-matched comparison of oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatic resection.
        Br J Surg. 2018; 105: 578-586
        • Wetterslev J.
        • Thorlund K.
        • Brok J.
        • Gluud C.
        Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 64-75
        • Cucchetti A.
        • Binda C.
        • Dajti E.
        • Sbrancia M.
        • Ercolani G.
        • Fabbri C.
        Trial sequential analysis of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage versus percutaneous cholecystostomy in patients with acute cholecystitis.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2022; 95: 399-406
        • Stroup D.F.
        • Berlin J.A.
        • Morton S.C.
        • et al.
        Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.
        JAMA. 2000; 283: 2008-2012
        • Page M.J.
        • McKenzie J.E.
        • Bossuyt P.M.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
        BMJ. 2021; 372: n71
        • Sterne J.A.C.
        • Savović J.
        • Page M.J.
        • et al.
        RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
        BMJ. 2019; 366: l4898
      1. Joanna Briggs Institute. Checklist for case control studies. https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools. [Accessed 1 June 2022].

        • Nyaga V.N.
        • Arbyn M.
        • Aerts M.
        Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data.
        Arch Public Health. 2014; 72: 39
        • Wan X.
        • Wang W.
        • Liu J.
        • Tong T.
        Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14: 135
        • Higgins J.P.
        • Thompson S.G.
        Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.
        Stat Med. 2002; 21: 1539-1558
        • de Rooij T.
        • Jilesen A.P.
        • Boerma D.
        • et al.
        A nationwide comparison of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant disease.
        J Am Coll Surg. 2015; 220: 263-270.e1
        • Wellner U.F.
        • Lapshyn H.
        • Bartsch D.K.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy-a propensity score-matched analysis from the German StuDoQ|Pancreas registry.
        Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017; 32: 273-280
        • Lee J.M.
        • Kim H.
        • Kang J.S.
        • HJ
        • et al.
        Comparison of perioperative short-term outcomes and oncologic long-term outcomes between open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
        Ann Surg Treat Res. 2021; 100: 320-328
        • Kwon J.
        • Park S.Y.
        • Park Y.
        • et al.
        A comparison of minimally invasive vs open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: propensity score matching analysis.
        J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2021; 28: 967-982
        • Chen K.
        • Pan Y.
        • Huang C.J.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopic versus open pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma: separate propensity score matching analyses of distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.
        BMC Cancer. 2021; 21: 382
        • Casadei R.
        • Ingaldi C.
        • Ricci C.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a single centre propensity score matching analysis.
        Updates Surg. 2021; 73: 1747-1755
        • Raghupathy J.
        • Lee C.Y.
        • Huan S.K.W.
        • et al.
        Propensity-score matched analyses comparing clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomies: a single-center experience.
        World J Surg. 2022; 46: 207-214
        • Partelli S.
        • Cinelli L.
        • Andreasi V.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of factors predicting loss of benefit provided by laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared to open approach.
        Updates Surg. 2022; 74: 213-221
        • Korrel M.
        • Vissers F.L.
        • van Hilst J.
        • et al.
        Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials.
        HPB (Oxford). 2021; 23: 323-330
        • Diener M.K.
        • Seiler C.M.
        • Rossion I.
        • et al.
        Efficacy of stapler versus hand-sewn closure after distal pancreatectomy (DISPACT): a randomised, controlled multicentre trial.
        Lancet. 2011; 377: 1514-1522
        • Degisors S.
        • Caiazzo R.
        • Dokmak S.
        • et al.
        Delayed gastric emptying following distal pancreatectomy: incidence and predisposing factors.
        HPB (Oxford). 2022; 24: 772-781
        • van Hilst J.
        • Korrel M.
        • Lof S.
        • et al.
        Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
        Trials. 2021; 22: 608
        • Lof S.
        • van der Heijde N.
        • Abuawwad M.
        • et al.
        Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis.
        Br J Surg. 2021; 108: 188-195
        • Tierney J.F.
        • Stewart L.A.
        • Ghersi D.
        • Burdett S.
        • Sydes M.R.
        Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis.
        Trials. 2007; 8: 16