Is total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy superior to open procedure? A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has been widely used in general surgical procedures, but total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) is still a complex and challenging surgery that is only performed in a small number of patients at a few large academic medical centers. Although the safety and feasibility of TLPD have been established, few studies have compared it with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) with regard to perioperative and oncological outcomes. Therefore, we carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate whether TLPD is superior to OPD.

AIM

To compare the treatment outcomes of TLPD and OPD in order to assess the safety and feasibility of TLPD.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of studies comparing TLPD with OPD that were published in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases through December 31, 2018. The studies comparing TLPD and OPD with at least one of the outcomes we were interested in and with more than 10 cases in each group were included in this analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the nonrandomized controlled trials and the Jadad scale was used to assess the randomized controlled trials. Intraoperative data, postoperative complications, and oncologic outcomes were evaluated. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software version 5.3. Random or fixed-effects meta-analyses were undertaken to measure the pooled estimates.

RESULTS

A total of 4790 articles were initially identified for our study. After screening, 4762 articles were excluded and 28 studies representing 39771 patients (3543 undergoing TLPD and 36228 undergoing OPD) were eventually included. Patients who underwent TLPD had less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -260.08 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI): (-336.02, -184.14) mL, < 0.00001], a lower blood transfusion rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.36-0.72, = 0.0001], a lower perioperative overall morbidity (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.73-0.92, = 0.0008), a lower wound infection rate (OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.34-0.67, < 0.0001), a lower pneumonia rate (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.60-0.85, = 0.0002), a shorter duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay [WMD = -0.28 d, 95%CI (-2.88, -1.29) d, < 0.00001] and a shorter length of hospital stay [WMD = -3.05 d, 95%CI (-3.93, -2.17), < 0.00001], a lower rate of discharge to a new facility (OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.39-0.78, = 0.0008), and a lower 30-d readmission rate (OR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68-0.95, = 0.10) than those who underwent OPD. In addition, the TLPD group had a higher R0 rate (OR = 1.28, 95%CI: 1.13-1.44, = 0.0001) and more lymph nodes harvested (WMD = 1.32, 95%CI: 0.57-2.06, = 0.0005) than the OPD group. However, the patients who underwent TLPD experienced a significantly longer operative time (WMD = 77.92 min, 95%CI: 40.89-114.95, < 0.0001) and had a smaller tumor size than those who underwent OPD [WMD = -0.32 cm, 95%CI: (-0.58, -0.07) cm, = 0.01]. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, bile leak, gastroenteric anastomosis fistula, intra-abdominal abscess, bowel obstruction, fluid collection, reoperation, ICU admission, or 30-d and 90-d mortality rates. For malignant tumors, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year overall survival rates were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicates that TLPD is safe and feasible, and may be a desirable alternative to OPD, although a longer operative time is needed and only smaller tumors can be treated.