Abstract
Purpose
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is becoming increasingly established at specialized surgical institutions worldwide. The purpose of this study was to compare single-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (panLESS) with conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (panLAP) to assess feasibility and 30-day morbidity.
Methods
Eight consecutive patients who underwent panLESS were matched with patients who underwent panLAP in the same time period. Matching criteria were age, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Feasibility was based on tumor size, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, resection status, and hospital stay. Thirty-day morbidity was defined by the revised Accordion Classification system and the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula definition.
Results
Over a 19-month period, 8 and 16 patients were identified for panLESS and panLAP, respectively. There were no significant differences in tumor size, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, resection status, and hospital stay between the two groups. Surgical complications developed in four panLESS patients and five panLAP patients, and out of which, two patients from each group developed a postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B).
Conclusions
This study indicates that panLESS is comparable to panLAP in terms of feasibility. More experience is needed to define what role single-incision distal pancreatectomy should have in minimal invasive pancreatic surgery.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Fernandez-Cruz L, Cosa R, Blanco L et al (2007) Curative laparoscopic resection for pancreatic neoplasms: a critical analysis from a single institution. J Gastrointest Surg 11(12):1607–1621
Kooby DA, Gillespie T, Bentrem D et al (2008) Left-sided pancreatectomy: a multicenter comparison of laparoscopic and open approaches. Ann Surg 248(3):438–446
Mabrut JY, Fernandez-Cruz L, Azagra JS et al (2005) Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: results of a multicenter European study of 127 patients. Surgery 137(6):597–605
Eom BW, Jang JY, Lee SE et al (2008) Clinical outcomes compared between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc 22(5):1334–1338
Rosok BI, Marangos IP, Kazaryan AM et al (2010) Single-centre experience of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Br J Surg 97(6):902–909
Kneuertz PJ, Patel SH, Chu CK et al (2012) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: trends and lessons learned through an 11-year experience. J Am Coll Surg 215(2):167–176
Abu HM, Hamdan M, Di FF et al (2012) Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a clinical and cost-effectiveness study. Surg Endosc 26(6):1670–1674
Fox AM, Pitzul K, Bhojani F et al (2012) Comparison of outcomes and costs between laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open resection at a single center. Surg Endosc 26(5):1220–1230
Butturini G, Inama M, Malleo G et al (2012) Perioperative and long-term results of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with or without splenic vessels conservation: a retrospective analysis. J Surg Oncol 105(4):387–392
Chang SK, Lomanto D, Mayasari M (2012) Single-port laparoscopic spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy. Minim Invasive Surg 2012:197429
Kuroki T, Adachi T, Okamoto T et al (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 58(107–108):1022–1024
Matthes K, Thakkar SJ, Lee SH et al (2011) Development of a pancreatic tumor animal model and evaluation of NOTES tumor enucleation. Surg Endosc 25(10):3191–3197
Matthes K, Yusuf TE, Willingham FF et al (2007) Feasibility of endoscopic transgastric distal pancreatectomy in a porcine animal model. Gastrointest Endosc 66(4):762–766
Horiguchi A, Uyama I, Ito M et al (2011) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 18(4):488–492
Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ et al (2011) Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages? Surg Endosc 25(6):2004–2009
Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM et al (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24(7):1646–1657
Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM et al (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 20(2):135–139
Porembka MR, Hall BL, Hirbe M et al (2010) Quantitative weighting of postoperative complications based on the accordion severity grading system: demonstration of potential impact using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 210(3):286–298
Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138(1):8–13
Edwin B, Mala T, Mathisen O et al (2004) Laparoscopic resection of the pancreas: a feasibility study of the short-term outcome. Surg Endosc 18(3):407–411
Pfluke JM, Parker M, Stauffer JA et al (2011) Laparoscopic surgery performed through a single incision: a systematic review of the current literature. J Am Coll Surg 212(1):113–118
Giulianotti PC, Kuechle J, Salehi P et al (2009) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy of a redo case combined with autologous islet transplantation for chronic pancreatitis. Pancreas 38(1):105–107
Marangos IP, Buanes T, Rosok BI et al (2012) Laparoscopic resection of exocrine carcinoma in central and distal pancreas results in a high rate of radical resections and long postoperative survival. Surgery 151(5):717–723
Kooby DA, Hawkins WG, Schmidt CM et al (2010) A multicenter analysis of distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma: is laparoscopic resection appropriate? J Am Coll Surg 210(5):779–7
Acknowledgments
The sources of support behind this study came from Oslo University Hospital.
Conflicts of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haugvik, SP., Røsok, B.I., Waage, A. et al. Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution case–control study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 398, 1091–1096 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-013-1133-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-013-1133-y