A systemic review and an updated meta-analysis: minimally invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy

• Published in: Scientific reports Vol. 7; no. 1; pp. 2220 - 8
• Main Authors: Zhao, Zhanwei, Yin, Zifang, Hang, Zhenning, Ji, Gang, Feng, Quanxin, Zhao, Qingchuan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Nature Publishing Group 22.05.2017; Nature Publishing Group UK; Nature Portfolio
• Subjects: Clinical trials; Fistulae; Gastric emptying; Hospitals; Humans; Keywords; Laparoscopy; Lymph nodes; Maternal & child health; Medical diagnosis; Meta-analysis; Mortality; Neoplasms - diagnosis; Neoplasms - mortality; Neoplasms - surgery; Odds Ratio; Pancreas; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy - adverse effects; Pancreaticoduodenectomy - methods; Patients; Robotics; Treatment Outcome; Wound infection
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-02488-4

The feasible of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains controversial when compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to summarise the available evidence to compare MIPD vs OPD. We systemically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies published through February 2016. The primary endpoint was postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF, grade B/C). A total of 27 studies involving 14,231 patients (2,377 MIPD and 11,854 OPD) were included. MIPD was associated with longer operative times (P < 0.01) and increased mortality (P < 0.01), but decreased estimated blood loss (P < 0.01), decreased delayed gastric emptying (P < 0.01), increased R0 resection rate (P < 0.01), decreased wound infection (P = 0.03) and shorter hospital stays (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in BMI (P = 0.43), tumor size (P = 0.17), lymph nodes harvest (P = 0.57), POPF (P = 0.84), reoperation (P = 0.25) and 5-year survival rates (P = 0.82) for MIPD compared with OPD. Although there was an increased operative cost (P < 0.01) for MIPD compared with OPD, the postoperative cost was less (P < 0.01) with the similar total costs (P = 0.28). MIPD can be a reasonable alternative to OPD with the potential advantage of being minimally invasive. However, MIPD should be performed in high-volume centers and more randomized-controlled trials are needed to evaluate the appropriate indications of MIPD.