4.6 Article

Laparoscopic versus open approach for solitary insulinoma

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-006-0021-8

Keywords

laparoscopic enucleation; laparoscopic pancreatic resection; solitary insulinoma

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In recent years, advances in laparoscopic techniques have allowed surgeons to treat pancreatic lesions laparoscopically. Insulinoma, the most prevalent pancreatic endocrine tumor, is mostly benign and curable with surgical resection. This study aimed to assess the results from laparoscopic resection (LG) of insulinomas and to compare them with the results from open surgery (OG). Methods: From September 1999 to December 2005, 56 laparoscopic pancreatic resections were performed for selected patients, including 12 laparoscopic resections of insulinomas. The results were compared with those of patients who underwent open resection of insulinomas selected from the authors' pancreatic database. Results: Three conversions to the open approach were required because of inability to identify the tumor. There were no deaths in either group, and the morbidity rates were 25% (3/12) for LG and 55% (5/9) for OG (nonsignificant difference). The pancreatic fistula rate after laparoscopic enucleation was statistically lower than after open enucleation (14% vs 100%; p = 0.015). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 13 5.9 days for LG and 17.6 +/- 7.5 days for OG (nonsignificant difference). After exclusion of the patients who underwent conversion to laparotomy, the mean postoperative hospital stay was 11.5 +/- 5.8 days for LG and 17.6 +/- 7.5 days for OG (p = 0.04). Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic resection of insulinomas. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a decrease in hospital stay and pancreatic fistula after enucleation. Preoperative localization tests and laparoscopic ultrasonography seem necessary to prevent conversion.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available