AIM To assess the current literature describing various minimally invasive techniques for and to review short-term outcomes after minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy(PD). METHODS PD remains the only potentially...AIM To assess the current literature describing various minimally invasive techniques for and to review short-term outcomes after minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy(PD). METHODS PD remains the only potentially curative treatment for periampullary malignancies, including, most commonly, pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Minimally invasive approaches to this complex operation have begun to be increasingly reported in the literature and are purported by some to reduce the historically high morbidity of PD associated with the open technique. In this systematic review, we have searched the literature for high-quality publications describing minimally invasive techniques for PD-including laparoscopic, robotic, and laparoscopicassisted robotic approaches(hybrid approach). We have identified publications with the largest operative experiences from well-known centers of excellence for this complex procedure. We report primarily short term operative and perioperative results and some short term oncologic endpoints. RESULTS Minimal y invasive techniques include laparoscopic, robotic and hybrid approaches and each of these techniques has strong advocates. Consistently, across all minimally invasive modalities, these techniques are associated less intraoperative blood loss than traditional open PD(OPD), but in exchange for longer operating times. These techniques are relatively equivalent in terms of perioperative morbidity and short term oncologic outcomes. Importantly, pancreatic fistula rate appears to be comparable in most minimally invasive series compared to open technique. Impact of minimally invasive technique on length of stay is mixed compared to some traditional open series. A few series have suggestedthat initiation of and time to adjuvant therapy may be improved with minimally invasive techniques, however this assertion remains controversial. In terms of shortterms costs, minimally invasive PD is significantly higher than that of OPD. CONCLUSION Minimally invasive approaches to PD show great promise as a strategy to improve short-term outcomes in patients undergoing PD, but the best results remain isolated to high-volume centers of excellence.展开更多
文摘AIM To assess the current literature describing various minimally invasive techniques for and to review short-term outcomes after minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy(PD). METHODS PD remains the only potentially curative treatment for periampullary malignancies, including, most commonly, pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Minimally invasive approaches to this complex operation have begun to be increasingly reported in the literature and are purported by some to reduce the historically high morbidity of PD associated with the open technique. In this systematic review, we have searched the literature for high-quality publications describing minimally invasive techniques for PD-including laparoscopic, robotic, and laparoscopicassisted robotic approaches(hybrid approach). We have identified publications with the largest operative experiences from well-known centers of excellence for this complex procedure. We report primarily short term operative and perioperative results and some short term oncologic endpoints. RESULTS Minimal y invasive techniques include laparoscopic, robotic and hybrid approaches and each of these techniques has strong advocates. Consistently, across all minimally invasive modalities, these techniques are associated less intraoperative blood loss than traditional open PD(OPD), but in exchange for longer operating times. These techniques are relatively equivalent in terms of perioperative morbidity and short term oncologic outcomes. Importantly, pancreatic fistula rate appears to be comparable in most minimally invasive series compared to open technique. Impact of minimally invasive technique on length of stay is mixed compared to some traditional open series. A few series have suggestedthat initiation of and time to adjuvant therapy may be improved with minimally invasive techniques, however this assertion remains controversial. In terms of shortterms costs, minimally invasive PD is significantly higher than that of OPD. CONCLUSION Minimally invasive approaches to PD show great promise as a strategy to improve short-term outcomes in patients undergoing PD, but the best results remain isolated to high-volume centers of excellence.
