4.3 Article

Multicenter comparative study of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy using propensity score-matching

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.268

关键词

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy; Morbidity; Pancreatic fistula; Propensity score-matching

资金

  1. Johnson Johnson
  2. Covidien Japan
  3. Taiho Pharmaceutical Company
  4. Chugai Pharmaceutical Company
  5. Pfizer
  6. Eli Lilly Japan
  7. Bristol Meyers Squib
  8. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Factory
  9. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd
  10. Eisai
  11. Yakult
  12. Daiichi Sankyo
  13. Mitsubishi
  14. Tanabe Pharma
  15. Merck
  16. Shionogi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been shown to be associated with favorable postoperative outcomes using meta-analysis. However, there have been no randomized controlled studies yet. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy using propensity score-matching. Methods We retrospectively collected perioperative data of 2,266 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy in 69 institutes from 2006-2013 in Japan. Among them, 2,010 patients were enrolled in this study and divided into two groups, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the groups using unmatched and propensity matched analysis. Results After propensity score-matching, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with favorable perioperative outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy, including higher rate of preservation of spleen and splenic vessels (P<0.001); lower rates of intraoperative transfusion (P=0.020), clinical grade of pancreatic fistula (International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B and C; P<0.001), and morbidity (P<0.001); and shorter hospital stay (P=0.001), but a longer operative time (P<0.001). Conclusions Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with more favorable perioperative outcomes than open distal pancreatectomy.

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

4.3
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