Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 3/2020

01-03-2020 | Pancreaticojejunostomy

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary tumors: lessons learned from 500 consecutive patients in a single center

Authors: Ki Byung Song, Song Cheol Kim, Woohyung Lee, Dae Wook Hwang, Jae Hoon Lee, Jaewoo Kwon, Yejong Park, Seung Jae Lee, Guisuk Park

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 3/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a feasible option in selected patients. However, its use has not yet been generalized since it is time-consuming, physically demanding, and technically challenging. It might be essential to share the experience of high-volume centers to understand its use.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 500 consecutive patients who underwent LPD at a single institution between January 2007 and December 2017.

Results

The patients included 272 women and 228 men (mean age, 57.1 years). The most common indication for LPD was intraductal papillary neoplasm (n = 104, 20.8%). Overall and major (Clavien–Dindo grades III–V) complication rates were 37.2% and 4.8%, respectively. Fifty-four patients (10.8%) had clinically relevant (grade B/C) pancreatic fistulas. There were 3 (0.6%) 90-day mortalities. The most common late complication was bilioenteric stricture (25, 5%). Two hundred thirty patients were diagnosed with periampullary cancer. The 5-year overall survival rates of pancreatic cancer, common bile duct cancer, ampulla of Vater cancer, and duodenal cancer were 37.4, 63.2, 78, and 88.9%, respectively. We analyzed learning curves of first-generation and second-generation surgeons. A risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis demonstrated a learning curve of 55 cases for LPD with the first-generation surgeon and earlier competency with the second-generation surgeon.

Conclusions

LPD has the potential to become an alternative surgery to open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary tumors with acceptable outcomes. We could reduce the steep learning curve with structured training, close supervision, and well-trained operation teams. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of LPD will be optimized after overcoming the learning curve.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Conrad C et al (2017) Comparable long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma: a propensity score weighting analysis. Surg Endosc 31(10):3970–3978PubMedCrossRef
2.
Shin SH et al (2015) A comparative study of laparoscopic vs. open distal pancreatectomy for left-sided ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Am Coll Surg 220(2):177–185PubMedCrossRef
3.
Khaled YS et al (2018) Matched case-control comparative study of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignant lesions. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 28(1):47–51PubMedCrossRef
4.
Maher H et al (2017) The prospective of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer management. Chin Clin Oncol 6(1):8PubMedCrossRef
5.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Bassi C et al (2017) The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161(3):584–591PubMedCrossRef
7.
Wente MN et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142(5):761–768PubMedCrossRef
8.
Forbes TL et al (2004) Cumulative sum failure analysis of the learning curve with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 39(1):102–108PubMedCrossRef
9.
Choi DH et al (2009) Learning curves for laparoscopic sigmoidectomy used to manage curable sigmoid colon cancer: single-institute, three-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 23(3):622–628PubMedCrossRef
10.
11.
Kim CW et al (2015) Learning curve for single-incision laparoscopic anterior resection for sigmoid colon cancer. J Am Coll Surg 221(2):397–403PubMedCrossRef
12.
Lee W et al (2016) Comparison of learning curves for major and minor laparoscopic liver resection. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 26(6):457–464PubMedCrossRef
13.
Ramsay CR et al (2000) Assessment of the learning curve in health technologies. A systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16(4):1095–1108PubMedCrossRef
14.
Tomassini F et al (2016) The single surgeon learning curve of laparoscopic liver resection: a continuous evolving process through stepwise difficulties. Medicine (Baltimore) 95(43):e5138CrossRef
15.
Lin CW et al (2016) The learning curve of laparoscopic liver resection after the Louisville statement 2008: will it be more effective and smooth? Surg Endosc 30(7):2895–2903PubMedCrossRef
16.
Gagner M, Pomp A (1994) Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 8(5):408–410PubMedCrossRef
17.
Gagner M, Pomp A (1997) Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: is it worthwhile? J Gastrointest Surg 1(1):20–25 discussion 25–6 PubMedCrossRef
18.
Dokmak S et al (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy should not be routine for resection of periampullary tumors. J Am Coll Surg 220(5):831–838PubMedCrossRef
19.
Kendrick ML, Cusati D (2010) Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: feasibility and outcome in an early experience. Arch Surg 145(1):19–23PubMedCrossRef
20.
Croome KP et al (2014) Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic advantages over open approaches? Ann Surg 260(4):633–638 discussion 638–40 PubMedCrossRef
21.
Kim SC et al (2013) Short-term clinical outcomes for 100 consecutive cases of laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy: improvement with surgical experience. Surg Endosc 27(1):95–103PubMedCrossRef
22.
Boggi U et al (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review. Surg Endosc 29(1):9–23PubMedCrossRef
23.
Hu BY et al (2016) Risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula: analysis of 539 successive cases of pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol 22(34):7797–7805PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Akamatsu N et al (2010) Risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: the significance of the ratio of the main pancreatic duct to the pancreas body as a predictor of leakage. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 17(3):322–328PubMedCrossRef
25.
Callery MP et al (2013) A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216(1):1–14PubMedCrossRef
26.
27.
Blanc T et al (2007) Hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy: when is surgery still indicated? Am J Surg 194(1):3–9PubMedCrossRef
28.
Ding X et al (2011) Therapeutic management of hemorrhage from visceral artery pseudoaneurysms after pancreatic surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 15(8):1417–1425PubMedCrossRef
29.
Treckmann J et al (2008) Sentinel bleeding after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a disregarded sign. J Gastrointest Surg 12(2):313–318PubMedCrossRef
30.
Imamura M et al (2016) Effects of antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction for gastro/duodenojejunostomy on delayed gastric emptying after pancreatoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg Res 200(1):147–157PubMedCrossRef
31.
32.
Reid-Lombardo KM et al (2007) Long-term anastomotic complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign diseases. J Gastrointest Surg 11(12):1704–1711PubMedCrossRef
33.
34.
Zhu JQ et al (2017) Bilioenteric anastomotic stricture in patients with benign and malignant tumors: prevalence, risk factors and treatment. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 16(4):412–417PubMedCrossRef
35.
Malgras B et al (2016) Early biliary complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy: prevalence and risk factors. HPB (Oxford) 18(4):367–374CrossRef
36.
Mauri G et al (2013) Biodegradable biliary stent implantation in the treatment of benign bilioplastic-refractory biliary strictures: preliminary experience. Eur Radiol 23(12):3304–3310PubMedCrossRef
37.
Kaffes A et al (2014) A randomized trial of a fully covered self-expandable metallic stent versus plastic stents in anastomotic biliary strictures after liver transplantation. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 7(2):64–71PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Cioffi JL et al (2016) Pancreaticojejunostomy stricture after pancreatoduodenectomy: outcomes after operative revision. J Gastrointest Surg 20(2):293–299PubMedCrossRef
39.
Demirjian AN et al (2010) The inconsistent nature of symptomatic pancreatico-jejunostomy anastomotic strictures. HPB (Oxford) 12(7):482–487CrossRef
40.
Bai MD et al (2008) Experimental study on operative methods of pancreaticojejunostomy with reference to anastomotic patency and postoperative pancreatic exocrine function. World J Gastroenterol 14(3):441–447PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
42.
Senthilnathan P et al (2015) Long-term results of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary cancer-experience of 130 cases from a tertiary-care center in South India. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 25(4):295–300PubMedCrossRef
43.
Stauffer JA et al (2017) Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results at a single institution. Surg Endosc 31(5):2233–2241PubMedCrossRef
44.
Wang M et al (2016) Learning curve for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a CUSUM analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 20(5):924–935PubMedCrossRef
45.
46.
Chedid AD et al (2015) Achieving good perioperative outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy in a low-volume setting: a 25-year experience. Int Surg 100(4):705–711PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary tumors: lessons learned from 500 consecutive patients in a single center
Authors
Ki Byung Song
Song Cheol Kim
Woohyung Lee
Dae Wook Hwang
Jae Hoon Lee
Jaewoo Kwon
Yejong Park
Seung Jae Lee
Guisuk Park
Publication date
01-03-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06913-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Surgical Endoscopy 3/2020 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Effectiveness of fibrin sealant as hemostatic technique in accelerating ESD-induced ulcer healing: a retrospective study

2019 SAGES Oral

Access to common laparoscopic general surgical procedures: do racial disparities exist?

OriginalPaper

Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case–controlled study of the MBSAQIP database

Dynamic Manuscript

Laparoscopic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for lower rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy

OriginalPaper

Trocar site closure with a novel anchor-based (neoClose®) system versus standard suture closure: a prospective randomized controlled trial

OriginalPaper

Effects of totally extraperitoneal and lichtenstein hernia repair on men’s sexual function and quality of life