4.1 Article

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy

出版社

SOC LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS
DOI: 10.4293/108680812X13462882736943

关键词

Laparoscopy; Pancreatectomy; Pancreas; Distal Pancreatectomy; IPMN; Adenocarcinoma of the pancreas

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Laparoscopic management of. distal pancreatic malignancies has been slow to gain a foothold in all but high-volume tertiary referral centers. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) performed in a low-volume community hospital by a diverse group of surgeons, none of whom have a specialized laparoscopic background. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who underwent open distal pancreatectomies (ODPs) and LDPs between August 2001 and June 2008. Data included type of surgery, open versus laparoscopy, demographics, operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, histopathologic diagnosis, postoperative complications, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and mortality. Results: Twenty-seven patients with pancreatic masses underwent distal pancreatic resection during the study period. Fifty-nine percent (n = 16) underwent LDP, and 41% (n = 11) underwent ODP. Mean patient age was 66 y (range, 40 to 86) for the LDP group and 62 (range, 40 to 84) for the ODP group. Mean operative time was 231 min (range, 195 to 305) for LDP and 240 (range, 150 to 210) for the ODP technique. Mean length of stay for LDP and ODP was 8 (range, 3 to 22) and 12 d (range, 5 to 2), respectively. Morbidity was 25% (n = 4) in the LDP group and 36% (n = 4) in the ODP group. None of the differences between the LDP and ODP groups were statistically significant. No mortalities occurred in either group. Conclusion: This study supports the idea that LDP can be safely and effectively performed by any surgeon comfortable with basic laparoscopy and may not require specialized training or a specialized center. Further data are required to make more definitive conclusions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据