4.6 Article

Laparoscopic versus open distal splenopancreatectomy for the treatment of pancreatic body and tail cancer: a retrospective, mid-term follow-up study at a single academic tertiary care institution

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3507-9

关键词

Pancreatic cancer; Splenopancreatectomy; Laparoscopy; Radical resection; Comparative study

类别

资金

  1. Beijing Nova Program [2012077]
  2. Beijing Special Clinical Application Program [Z121107001012133]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Laparoscopic distal splenopancreatectomy (DSP) is an effective and safe surgical modality for treating benign and borderline distal pancreatic tumors, but rarely for pancreatic cancer. This study aimed to examine the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of laparoscopic versus laparotomic DSP in pancreatic body-tail cancer (PBTC) patients. Thirty-four PBTC patients were consecutively and retrospectively hospitalized for elective laparoscopic DSP (n = 11) or laparotomy (n = 23) between January 2007 and December 2011. The primary outcome measure was mean overall survival (OS). All patients underwent DSP via laparoscopy or laparotomy as scheduled and were followed-up for 12-72 months. The two groups showed statistically similar mean operative time (laparoscopy vs. laparotomy, 150 +/- A 54 vs. 160 +/- A 48 min), median volume of intraoperative bleeding (100 [50-400] vs. 150 [50-350] ml), and rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (18.2 vs. 21.7 %). The laparoscopy group had a significantly shorter median duration of hospitalization (5 [3-12] vs. 8 [7-22] d, P < 0.05). All patients had a clear resection margin and showed statistically similar tumor size (2.8 +/- A 1.5 vs. 3.1 +/- A 1.7 cm), number of lymph nodes dissected (14.8 +/- A 4.5 vs. 16.1 +/- A 5.7), and mean OS (42.0 +/- A 8.6 vs. 54.0 +/- A 5.8 mo, P > 0.05). Laparoscopic DSP is a feasible, effective, and safe alternative to laparotomy in carefully selected PBTC patients and is associated with a more rapid postoperative recovery.

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

4.6
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