| 1. |
- Korrel, Maarten, et al.
(författare)
-
Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA): an international randomised non-inferiority trial
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Regional Health. - : ELSEVIER. - 2666-7762. ; 31
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, & GE;1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI -6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0-30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0-32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0-30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5-5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7-5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67-1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society. Copyright & COPY; 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
|
|
| 2. |
- Kuemmerli, Christoph, et al.
(författare)
-
Are enhanced recovery protocols after pancreatoduodenectomy still efficient when applied in elderly patients? A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences. - 1868-6974. ; 31:5, s. 308-317
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: This meta-analysis investigated the effects of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols compared to conventional care on postoperative outcomes in patients aged 70 years or older undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Methods: Five databases were systematically searched. Comparative studies with available individual patient data (IPD) were included. The main outcomes were postoperative morbidity, length of stay, readmission and postoperative functional recovery elements. To assess an age-dependent effect, the group was divided in septuagenarians (70–79 years) and older patients (≥80 years). Results: IPD were obtained from 15 of 31 eligible studies comprising 1109 patients. The overall complication and major complication rates were comparable in both groups (OR 0.92 [95% CI: 0.65–1.29], p =.596 and OR 1.22 [95% CI: 0.61–2.46], p =.508). Length of hospital stay tended to be shorter in the ERAS group compared to the conventional care group (−0.14 days [95% CI: −0.29 to 0.01], p =.071) while readmission rates were comparable and the total length of stay including days in hospital after readmission tended to be shorter in the ERAS group (−0.28 days [95% CI: −0.62 to 0.05], p =.069). In the subgroups, the length of stay was shorter in octogenarians treated with ERAS (−0.36 days [95% CI: −0.71 to −0.004], p =.048). The readmission rate increased slightly but not significantly while the total length of stay was not longer in the ERAS group. Conclusion: ERAS in the elderly is safe and its benefits are preserved in the care of even in patients older than 80 years. Standardized care protocol should be encouraged in all pancreatic centers.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kuemmerli, Christoph, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of enhanced recovery protocols after pancreatoduodenectomy : meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: The British journal of surgery. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1365-2168 .- 0007-1323. ; 109:3, s. 256-266
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: This individual-patient data meta-analysis investigated the effects of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols compared with conventional care on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched systematically for articles reporting outcomes of ERAS after pancreatoduodenectomy published up to August 2020. Comparative studies were included. Main outcomes were postoperative functional recovery elements, postoperative morbidity, duration of hospital stay, and readmission. RESULTS: Individual-patient data were obtained from 17 of 31 eligible studies comprising 3108 patients. Time to liquid (mean difference (MD) -3.23 (95 per cent c.i. -4.62 to -1.85) days; P < 0.001) and solid (-3.84 (-5.09 to -2.60) days; P < 0.001) intake, time to passage of first stool (MD -1.38 (-1.82 to -0.94) days; P < 0.001) and time to removal of the nasogastric tube (3.03 (-4.87 to -1.18) days; P = 0.001) were reduced with ERAS. ERAS was associated with lower overall morbidity (risk difference (RD) -0.04, 95 per cent c.i. -0.08 to -0.01; P = 0.015), less delayed gastric emptying (RD -0.11, -0.22 to -0.01; P = 0.039) and a shorter duration of hospital stay (MD -2.33 (-2.98 to -1.69) days; P < 0.001) without a higher readmission rate. CONCLUSION: ERAS improved postoperative outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy. Implementation should be encouraged.
|
|
| 4. |
- van Hilst, Jony, et al.
(författare)
-
Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA)
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 269:1, s. 10-17
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).Background: Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC.Methods: This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival.Results: In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60–400) vs 300 mL (150–500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6–12) vs 9 (7–14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8–22) vs 22 (14–31), P< 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22–34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26–36) months (P = 0.929).Conclusions: Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
