A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A matched-pair analysis of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: oncological outcomes using Leeds Pathology Protocol. | LitMetric

A matched-pair analysis of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: oncological outcomes using Leeds Pathology Protocol.

Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int

Department of HPB and Transplant Surgery, St James's University Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Beckett street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, United Kingdom.

Published: August 2014

Background: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a safe procedure. Oncological safety of LPD is still a matter for debate. This study aimed to compare the oncological outcomes, in terms of adequacy of resection and recurrence rate following LPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

Methods: Between November 2005 and April 2009, 12 LPDs (9 ampullary and 3 distal common bile duct tumors) were performed. A cohort of 12 OPDs were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and tumor site.

Results: Mean tumor size LPD vs OPD (19.8 vs 19.2 mm, P=0.870). R0 resection was achieved in 9 LPD vs 8 OPD (P=1.000). The mean number of metastatic lymph nodes and total number resected for LPD vs OPD were 1.1 vs 2.1 (P=0.140) and 20.7 vs 18.5 (P=0.534) respectively. Clavien complications grade I/II (5 vs 8), III/IV (2 vs 6) and pancreatic leak (2 vs 1) were statistically not significant (LPD vs OPD). The mean high dependency unit (HDU) stay was longer in OPD (3.7 vs 1.4 days, P<0.001). There were 2 recurrences each in LPD and OPD (log-rank, P=0.983). Overall mortality for LPD vs OPD was 3 vs 6 (log-rank, P=0.283) and recurrence-related mortality was 2 vs 1. There was one death within 30 days in the OPD group secondary to severe sepsis and none in the LPD group.

Conclusions: Compared to open procedure, LPD achieved a similar rate of R0 resection, lymph node harvest and long-term recurrence for tumors less than 2 cm. Though technically challenging, LPD is safe and does not compromise oncological outcome.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1499-3872(14)60048-5DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lpd opd
16
open pancreaticoduodenectomy
8
oncological outcomes
8
lpd
7
opd
5
matched-pair analysis
4
analysis laparoscopic
4
laparoscopic versus
4
versus open
4
pancreaticoduodenectomy oncological
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!