{"title":"开放重建的腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术：佛陀的中庸之道","authors":"Ameet Kumar, Sumesh Kaistha, Rajesh Gangavatiker","doi":"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is not universally adopted because of its steep learning curve. Its technical complexity discourages many surgeons. We believe that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with open reconstruction (LPOR) has all the benefits of LPD without its drawbacks and combines the ease of open surgery with the benefits of minimal access surgery. We assessed the feasibility and safety of LPOR and compared it with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), with the objectives being perioperative and short-term clinical/oncologic outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective review of prospectively maintained database; study period from January 2013 to December 2019. Till 2015, we did only OPD. In 2016, we started with LPD but soon switched to LPOR. The resection part was done laparoscopically and the reconstruction part was done through a 8-cm mini-laparotomy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We did 19 OPDs and 15 LPORs. Demographic data of the 2 groups were comparable. The duration of surgery was significantly longer in the LPOR group (360 vs. 410 min; P =0.01), whereas the blood loss and hospital stay were longer in the OPD group (520 vs. 360 mL; P =0.03 and 13 vs. 11 d; P =0.08, respectively). Clinically significant complication rates, including delayed gastric emptying and postoperative pancreatic fistulas, were not different in either group. No patients in the LPOR group had wound-related/pulmonary complications. Lymph node yield was similar in both groups (20 vs. 22) and we had 100% R0 resections.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LPOR was better than OPD in terms of short-term outcomes and was not inferior to OPD in terms of complications/oncologic outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":22092,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","volume":" ","pages":"511-517"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy With Open Reconstruction: The Buddha's Middle Path.\",\"authors\":\"Ameet Kumar, Sumesh Kaistha, Rajesh Gangavatiker\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001311\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is not universally adopted because of its steep learning curve. Its technical complexity discourages many surgeons. We believe that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with open reconstruction (LPOR) has all the benefits of LPD without its drawbacks and combines the ease of open surgery with the benefits of minimal access surgery. We assessed the feasibility and safety of LPOR and compared it with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), with the objectives being perioperative and short-term clinical/oncologic outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective review of prospectively maintained database; study period from January 2013 to December 2019. Till 2015, we did only OPD. In 2016, we started with LPD but soon switched to LPOR. The resection part was done laparoscopically and the reconstruction part was done through a 8-cm mini-laparotomy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We did 19 OPDs and 15 LPORs. Demographic data of the 2 groups were comparable. The duration of surgery was significantly longer in the LPOR group (360 vs. 410 min; P =0.01), whereas the blood loss and hospital stay were longer in the OPD group (520 vs. 360 mL; P =0.03 and 13 vs. 11 d; P =0.08, respectively). Clinically significant complication rates, including delayed gastric emptying and postoperative pancreatic fistulas, were not different in either group. No patients in the LPOR group had wound-related/pulmonary complications. Lymph node yield was similar in both groups (20 vs. 22) and we had 100% R0 resections.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LPOR was better than OPD in terms of short-term outcomes and was not inferior to OPD in terms of complications/oncologic outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22092,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"511-517\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001311\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001311","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy With Open Reconstruction: The Buddha's Middle Path.
Background: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is not universally adopted because of its steep learning curve. Its technical complexity discourages many surgeons. We believe that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with open reconstruction (LPOR) has all the benefits of LPD without its drawbacks and combines the ease of open surgery with the benefits of minimal access surgery. We assessed the feasibility and safety of LPOR and compared it with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), with the objectives being perioperative and short-term clinical/oncologic outcomes.
Methods: Retrospective review of prospectively maintained database; study period from January 2013 to December 2019. Till 2015, we did only OPD. In 2016, we started with LPD but soon switched to LPOR. The resection part was done laparoscopically and the reconstruction part was done through a 8-cm mini-laparotomy.
Results: We did 19 OPDs and 15 LPORs. Demographic data of the 2 groups were comparable. The duration of surgery was significantly longer in the LPOR group (360 vs. 410 min; P =0.01), whereas the blood loss and hospital stay were longer in the OPD group (520 vs. 360 mL; P =0.03 and 13 vs. 11 d; P =0.08, respectively). Clinically significant complication rates, including delayed gastric emptying and postoperative pancreatic fistulas, were not different in either group. No patients in the LPOR group had wound-related/pulmonary complications. Lymph node yield was similar in both groups (20 vs. 22) and we had 100% R0 resections.
Conclusions: LPOR was better than OPD in terms of short-term outcomes and was not inferior to OPD in terms of complications/oncologic outcomes.
期刊介绍：
Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques is a primary source for peer-reviewed, original articles on the newest techniques and applications in operative laparoscopy and endoscopy. Its Editorial Board includes many of the surgeons who pioneered the use of these revolutionary techniques. The journal provides complete, timely, accurate, practical coverage of laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques and procedures; current clinical and basic science research; preoperative and postoperative patient management; complications in laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery; and new developments in instrumentation and technology.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
