Efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy in Vietnamese patients with periampullary of Vater malignancies: A single-institution prospective study

Abstract

Introduction Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is a technically complex technique, that is being used to treat periampullary malignancy. We provide our experience with laparoscopic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (LAPD) with statistics on the outcomes of periampullary cancer patients. Material and method Thirty patients underwent surgery between June 1, 2016 and May 30, 2020, with 21 undergoing classical PD and 9 undergoing pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD). Prospectively gathered data on surgical outcomes and long-term oncological results are given. Results The median operative time was 277.5 min (range, 258.7–330 min), and the median intraoperative estimated blood loss was 319.5 mL (range, 241.2–425 mL). The rate of conversion to OPD, surgical reintervention, and mortality was 20%, 13.3%, and 10% respectively. Cumulative surgery-related morbidity was 33.4%, including bleeding (n = 4), severe POPF (n = 4), biliary fistula (n = 1), DGE (n = 2), and intestinal obstruction (n = 1). Pathologic diagnoses were AoV cancer (n = 23), distal CBD cancer (n = 4), PDAC (n = 2), and AoV NET (n = 1). The mean survival time of the LAPD group was 29.9 months. The long-term survival time of the N0 group was 36.8 months, which was significantly longer than that of the N1 group. The long-term survival times of stages I–B, II-A, and II-B were 36.9, 26.5, and 15.7 months, respectively (p = 0.016). Conclusion LAPD has a high rate of conversion to OPD, morbidity, and mortality. However, LPD is feasible technique for highly selected patients. Lymph node metastasis and stage of disease are the risk factors for long-term survival.

Comparison of short-term outcomes of open and laparoscopic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary carcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis

“…However, there is a scarcity of data comparing the outcomes of the LAPD and OPD [ 8 ]. The majority of data are non-randomized retrospective data and there are few high-quality comparison research studies [ 12 - 14 ]. This study aimed to compare short-term outcomes and oncological efficacy of the LAPD versus OPD using a propensity score matching analysis.…”