Laparoscopic and open surgical treatment of left-sided pancreatic lesions: clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis.
ABSTRACT Previous studies comparing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) have found advantages related to minimal-access surgery. Few studies have compared direct and associated costs after LDP versus ODP. The purpose of the current study was to compare perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing LDP and ODP and to assess whether LDP was a cost-effective procedure compared with the traditional ODP.
A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of 52 distal pancreatic resections that were performed during a 10-year period was performed.
Patients included in the analysis were 16 in the LDP group and 29 in the ODP. Tumors operated laparoscopically were smaller than those removed at open operation, but the length of pancreatic resection was similar. The mean operating time for LDP was longer than ODP (204 ± 31 vs. 160 ± 35; P < 0.0001), whereas blood loss was higher in the open group (365 ± 215 vs. 160 ± 185, P < 0.0001). Morbidity (25 vs. 41; P = 0.373) and pancreatic fistula (18 vs. 20%; P = 0.6) rates were similar after LDP and ODP, as was 30-day mortality (0 vs. 2%; P = 0.565). LDP had a shorter mean length of hospital stay than ODP (6.4 (2.3) vs. 8.8 (1.7) days; P < 0.0001). Operative cost for LDP was higher than ODP ( 2889 vs. 1989; P < 0.0001). The entire cost of the associated hospital stay was higher in the ODP group ( 8955 vs. 6714; P < 0.043). The total cost was comparable in LDP and ODP groups ( 9603 vs. 10944; P = 0.204).
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for left-sided lesions can be performed safely and effectively in selected patients, with reduced hospital stay and operative blood loss. Major complications, including pancreatic leak, were not reduced, whereas total cost was comparable between LDP and ODP. A selective use of LDP seems to be an effective and cost-efficient alternative to ODP.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic disease has gained increasing popularity. A laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is technically simple and has been adopted as the preferred method in many centers. However, there is limited information on the outcomes of the laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and to evaluate its efficacy compared with open distal pancreatectomy. From February 1995 to March 2006, 31 patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and 167 patients underwent open distal pancreatectomy at Seoul National University Hospital and Bundang Seoul National University Hospital. A case-control design was used with 2:1 matching to compare laparoscopic surgery with open surgery. Among 167 patients who underwent open distal pancreatectomy, 62 patients whose age, gender, and pathology were similar to those of patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery were selected for this study. The operation time, intraoperative transfusion requirements, duration of postoperative hospitalization, complications, mortality, recurrence, and hospital charges were analyzed. There were no significant differences in operation time, rate of intraoperative transfusions, complications, recurrence, or mortality between the two groups. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with a statistically significant shorter hospital stay (11.5 days vs 13.5 days; p = 0.049), but with more expensive hospital charges than open distal pancreatectomy (p < 0.01). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is a clinically safe and effective procedure for benign and borderline pancreatic tumors.Surgical Endoscopy 11/2007; 22(5):1334-8. · 3.43 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Minimal invasive surgical approach can achieve quick functional recovery. However, the oncologic outcome for cancer is still a concern. This study aims to compare the oncologic outcome between laparoscopic and open methods in the curative resection of Stage II or III left-sided colon cancers. In consideration of statistical power up to 90%, 286 eligible patients with curable left-sided colon cancer (Tumor-Node-Metastasis Stage II and Stage III disease) requiring the takedown of colonic splenic flexure to facilitate a curative left hemicolectomy were recruited randomly and equally allocated to the laparoscopic and open group. The primary endpoint was time-to-recurrence of tumor. Data was analyzed according to intention-to-treat principle. Postrandomization exclusion occurred because of metastatic disease detected intraoperatively occurred in 13 patients and because of patient withdrawal from trial in 4. Therefore, 135 and 134 patients actually comprised the laparoscopic and open group, respectively. The median follow-up of patient was 40 months (range: 18-72 months). The oncologic results were similar (P = 0.362, one-sided log-rank test) in laparoscopic and open group of patients, with the estimated cumulative recurrence rate of 13.2% (9/68) versus 17.2% (11/64) in Stage II disease and 20.9% (14/67) versus 25.7% (18/70) in Stage III disease, respectively. The recurrence patterns were similar between the two groups. Both open and laparoscopic groups were comparable in the number of dissected lymph node (15.6 +/- 3.0 vs. 16.0 +/- 6.0, P = 0.489), various demographic and clinicopathologic parameters. The estimated cumulative recurrence rate for the surgery of Stage II or III left-sided colon cancers was the same between laparoscopic and open methods.Annals of Surgical Oncology 02/2007; 14(1):109-17. · 4.12 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although laparoscopic resection of colorectal carcinoma improves post-operative recovery, long-term survival and disease control are the determining factors for its application. We aimed to test the null hypothesis that there was no difference in survival after laparoscopic and open resection for rectosigmoid cancer. From Sept 21, 1993, to Oct 21, 2002, 403 patients with rectosigmoid carcinoma were randomised to receive either laparoscopic assisted (n=203) or conventional open (n=200) resection of the tumour. Survival and disease-free interval were the main endpoints. Patients were last followed-up in March, 2003. Perioperative data were recorded and direct cost of operation estimated. Data were analysed by intention to treat. The demographic data of the two groups were similar. After curative resection, the probabilities of survival at 5 years of the laparoscopic and open resection groups were 76.1% (SE 3.7%) and 72.9% (4.0%) respectively. The probabilities of being disease free at 5 years were 75.3% (3.7%) and 78.3% (3.7%), respectively. The operative time of the laparoscopic group was significantly longer, whereas postoperative recovery was significantly better than for the open resection group, but these benefits were at the expense of higher direct cost. The distal margin, the number of lymph nodes found in the resected specimen, overall morbidity and operative mortality did not differ between groups. Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma does not jeopardise survival and disease control of patients. The justification for adoption of laparoscopic technique would depend on the perceived value of its effectiveness in improving short-term post-operative outcomes.The Lancet 05/2004; 363(9416):1187-92. · 39.06 Impact Factor