TY - JOUR
T1 - Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study
AU - European Consortium on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS)
AU - van Hilst, Jony
AU - de Rooij, Thijs
AU - Klompmaker, Sjors
AU - Rawashdeh, Majd
AU - Aleotti, Francesca
AU - Al-Sarireh, Bilal
AU - Alseidi, Adnan
AU - Ateeb, Zeeshan
AU - Balzano, Gianpaolo
AU - Berrevoet, Frederik
AU - Björnsson, Bergthor
AU - Boggi, Ugo
AU - Busch, Olivier R.
AU - Butturini, Giovanni
AU - Casadei, Riccardo
AU - del Chiaro, Marco
AU - Chikhladze, Sophia
AU - Cipriani, Federica
AU - van Dam, Ronald
AU - Damoli, Isacco
AU - van Dieren, Susan
AU - Dokmak, Safi
AU - Edwin, Bjørn
AU - van Eijck, Casper
AU - Fabre, Jean-Marie
AU - Falconi, Massimo
AU - Farges, Olivier
AU - Fernández-Cruz, Laureano
AU - Forgione, Antonello
AU - Frigerio, Isabella
AU - Fuks, David
AU - Gavazzi, Francesca
AU - Gayet, Brice
AU - Giardino, Alessandro
AU - Groot Koerkamp, Bas
AU - Hackert, Thilo
AU - Hassenpflug, Matthias
AU - Kabir, Irfan
AU - Keck, Tobias
AU - Khatkov, Igor
AU - Kusar, Masa
AU - Lombardo, Carlo
AU - Marchegiani, Giovanni
AU - Marshall, Ryne
AU - Menon, Krish V.
AU - Montorsi, Marco
AU - Orville, Marion
AU - de Pastena, Matteo
AU - Pietrabissa, Andrea
AU - Besselink, Marc G.
PY - 2019/1/1
Y1 - 2019/1/1
N2 - OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC. METHODS: This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival. RESULTS: In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60-400) vs 300 mL (150-500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6-12) vs 9 (7-14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8-22) vs 22 (14-31), P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22-34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26-36) months (P = 0.929). CONCLUSIONS: Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.
AB - OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC. METHODS: This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival. RESULTS: In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60-400) vs 300 mL (150-500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6-12) vs 9 (7-14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8-22) vs 22 (14-31), P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22-34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26-36) months (P = 0.929). CONCLUSIONS: Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058902880&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002561
DO - https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002561
M3 - Article
C2 - 29099399
SN - 0003-4932
VL - 269
SP - 10
EP - 17
JO - Annals of surgery
JF - Annals of surgery
IS - 1
ER -