Suppr超能文献

腹腔镜和开放手术治疗左侧胰腺病变:临床结果和成本效益分析。

Laparoscopic and open surgical treatment of left-sided pancreatic lesions: clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis.

机构信息

Department of General and Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, S.M. Loreto Nuovo Hospital, Via A. Vespucci, 80142 Naples, Italy.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2012 Jul;26(7):1830-6. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-2141-z. Epub 2012 Jan 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of 52 distal pancreatic resections that were performed during a 10-year period was performed.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

摘要

背景

先前比较开腹胰体尾切除术(ODP)和腹腔镜胰体尾切除术(LDP)的研究发现微创相关的优势。少数研究比较了 LDP 和 ODP 术后直接和相关成本。本研究的目的是比较 LDP 和 ODP 术后患者的围手术期结果,并评估 LDP 是否比传统 ODP 更具成本效益。

方法

对 10 年内进行的 52 例胰体尾切除术前瞻性数据库进行回顾性分析。

结果

分析纳入的患者中,LDP 组 16 例,ODP 组 29 例。腹腔镜手术切除的肿瘤小于开腹手术切除的肿瘤,但胰体尾切除长度相似。LDP 的平均手术时间长于 ODP(204 ± 31 vs. 160 ± 35;P < 0.0001),而术中出血量在开放组更高(365 ± 215 vs. 160 ± 185,P < 0.0001)。LDP 和 ODP 的术后发病率(25% vs. 41%;P = 0.373)和胰瘘(18% vs. 20%;P = 0.6)率相似,30 天死亡率(0% vs. 2%;P = 0.565)也相似。LDP 的平均住院时间短于 ODP(6.4(2.3)vs. 8.8(1.7)天;P < 0.0001)。LDP 的手术费用高于 ODP(€2889 比 €1989;P < 0.0001)。OPD 组的总住院相关费用较高(€8955 比 €6714;P < 0.043)。LDP 和 ODP 组的总费用相当(€9603 比 €10944;P = 0.204)。

结论

对于左侧病变,腹腔镜胰体尾切除术在选择的患者中可以安全有效地进行,可减少住院时间和手术失血量。包括胰漏在内的主要并发症并未减少,而 LDP 和 ODP 的总费用相当。LDP 的选择性使用似乎是 ODP 的一种有效且具有成本效益的替代方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验