Propensity score-matched analysis of early outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Background: Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a feasible option for periampullary tumours. However, it remains a complex procedure with no proven advantages over open PD (OPD). The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes between laparoscopic-assisted PD (LAPD) and OPD using a propensity score-matched analysis.

Methods: Retrospective review of 40 patients who underwent PD for periampullary tumours between January 2014 and December 2016 was conducted. The patients were matched 1:1 for age, gender, body mass index, Charlson comorbidty index, tumour size and haematological indices. Peri-operative outcomes were evaluated.

Results: LAPD appeared to have a longer median operative time as compared to OPD (LAPD, 425 min (285-597) versus OPD, 369 min (260-500)) (P = 0.066). Intra-operative blood loss was comparable between both groups. Respiratory complications were five times higher in the OPD group (LAPD, 5% versus OPD, 25%) (P = 0.077), while LAPD patients required less time to start ambulating post-operatively (LAPD, 2 days versus OPD, 2 days) (P = 0.021). Pancreas-specific complications and morbidity/mortality rates were similar.

Conclusion: LAPD is a safe alternative to OPD in a select group of patients for an institution starting out with minimally invasive PD, and can be used to bridge the learning curve required for total laparoscopic PD.