Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy

Michael L. Kendrick, Jony van Hilst, Ugo Boggi, Thijs de Rooij, R. Matthew Walsh, Herbert J. Zeh, Steven J. Hughes, Yoshiharu Nakamura, Charles M. Vollmer, David A. Kooby, Horacio J. Asbun, Horacio J. Asbun, Jeffrey Barkun, Marc GH Besselink, Ugo Boggi, Kevin CP Conlon, Ho Seong Han, Paul D. Hansen, Michael L. Kendrick, David A. Kooby & 8 others Andre L. Montagnini, C. Palanivelu, Bård I. Røsok, Shailesh V. Shrikhande, Go Wakabayashi, Herbert Zeh, Charles M. Vollmer, the Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. The aim was to conduct an assessment of the best-evidence and expert opinion on the current status and future challenges of MIPD. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed and best-evidence presented at a State-of-the-Art conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection. Expert panel discussion and audience response activity was used to assess perceived value and future direction. Results From 582 studies, 26 comparative trials of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were assessed for perioperative outcomes. There were no randomized controlled trials and all available comparative studies were determined of low quality. Several observational and case-matched studies demonstrate longer operative times, but less estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay for MIPD. Registry-based studies demonstrate increased mortality rates after MIPD in low-volume centers. Oncologic assessment demonstrates comparable outcomes of MIPD. Expert opinion supports ongoing evaluation of MIPD. Conclusion MIPD appears to provide similar perioperative and oncologic outcomes in selected patients, when performed at experienced, high-volume centers. Its overall role in pancreatoduodenectomy needs to be better defined. Improved training opportunities, registry participation and prospective evaluation are needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)215-224
Number of pages10
JournalHPB
Volume19
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017

Fingerprint

Pancreaticoduodenectomy
Expert Testimony
Registries
Length of Stay
Operative Time
Randomized Controlled Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Kendrick, M. L., van Hilst, J., Boggi, U., de Rooij, T., Walsh, R. M., Zeh, H. J., ... the Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee (2017). Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB, 19(3), 215-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2017.01.023

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. / Kendrick, Michael L.; van Hilst, Jony; Boggi, Ugo; de Rooij, Thijs; Walsh, R. Matthew; Zeh, Herbert J.; Hughes, Steven J.; Nakamura, Yoshiharu; Vollmer, Charles M.; Kooby, David A.; Asbun, Horacio J.; Asbun, Horacio J.; Barkun, Jeffrey; Besselink, Marc GH; Boggi, Ugo; Conlon, Kevin CP; Han, Ho Seong; Hansen, Paul D.; Kendrick, Michael L.; Kooby, David A.; Montagnini, Andre L.; Palanivelu, C.; Røsok, Bård I.; Shrikhande, Shailesh V.; Wakabayashi, Go; Zeh, Herbert; Vollmer, Charles M.; the Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee.

In: HPB, Vol. 19, No. 3, 01.03.2017, p. 215-224.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kendrick, ML, van Hilst, J, Boggi, U, de Rooij, T, Walsh, RM, Zeh, HJ, Hughes, SJ, Nakamura, Y, Vollmer, CM, Kooby, DA, Asbun, HJ, Asbun, HJ, Barkun, J, Besselink, MGH, Boggi, U, Conlon, KCP, Han, HS, Hansen, PD, Kendrick, ML, Kooby, DA, Montagnini, AL, Palanivelu, C, Røsok, BI, Shrikhande, SV, Wakabayashi, G, Zeh, H, Vollmer, CM & the Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee 2017, 'Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy', HPB, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 215-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2017.01.023
Kendrick ML, van Hilst J, Boggi U, de Rooij T, Walsh RM, Zeh HJ et al. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB. 2017 Mar 1;19(3):215-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2017.01.023
Kendrick, Michael L. ; van Hilst, Jony ; Boggi, Ugo ; de Rooij, Thijs ; Walsh, R. Matthew ; Zeh, Herbert J. ; Hughes, Steven J. ; Nakamura, Yoshiharu ; Vollmer, Charles M. ; Kooby, David A. ; Asbun, Horacio J. ; Asbun, Horacio J. ; Barkun, Jeffrey ; Besselink, Marc GH ; Boggi, Ugo ; Conlon, Kevin CP ; Han, Ho Seong ; Hansen, Paul D. ; Kendrick, Michael L. ; Kooby, David A. ; Montagnini, Andre L. ; Palanivelu, C. ; Røsok, Bård I. ; Shrikhande, Shailesh V. ; Wakabayashi, Go ; Zeh, Herbert ; Vollmer, Charles M. ; the Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee. / Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. In: HPB. 2017 ; Vol. 19, No. 3. pp. 215-224.
@article{ff268ea43bc14d87b55ae7e49b47c5a7,
title = "Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy",
abstract = "Background Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. The aim was to conduct an assessment of the best-evidence and expert opinion on the current status and future challenges of MIPD. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed and best-evidence presented at a State-of-the-Art conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection. Expert panel discussion and audience response activity was used to assess perceived value and future direction. Results From 582 studies, 26 comparative trials of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were assessed for perioperative outcomes. There were no randomized controlled trials and all available comparative studies were determined of low quality. Several observational and case-matched studies demonstrate longer operative times, but less estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay for MIPD. Registry-based studies demonstrate increased mortality rates after MIPD in low-volume centers. Oncologic assessment demonstrates comparable outcomes of MIPD. Expert opinion supports ongoing evaluation of MIPD. Conclusion MIPD appears to provide similar perioperative and oncologic outcomes in selected patients, when performed at experienced, high-volume centers. Its overall role in pancreatoduodenectomy needs to be better defined. Improved training opportunities, registry participation and prospective evaluation are needed.",
author = "Kendrick, {Michael L.} and {van Hilst}, Jony and Ugo Boggi and {de Rooij}, Thijs and Walsh, {R. Matthew} and Zeh, {Herbert J.} and Hughes, {Steven J.} and Yoshiharu Nakamura and Vollmer, {Charles M.} and Kooby, {David A.} and Asbun, {Horacio J.} and Asbun, {Horacio J.} and Jeffrey Barkun and Besselink, {Marc GH} and Ugo Boggi and Conlon, {Kevin CP} and Han, {Ho Seong} and Hansen, {Paul D.} and Kendrick, {Michael L.} and Kooby, {David A.} and Montagnini, {Andre L.} and C. Palanivelu and R{\o}sok, {B{\aa}rd I.} and Shrikhande, {Shailesh V.} and Go Wakabayashi and Herbert Zeh and Vollmer, {Charles M.} and {the Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.hpb.2017.01.023",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "215--224",
journal = "HPB",
issn = "1365-182X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy

AU - Kendrick, Michael L.

AU - van Hilst, Jony

AU - Boggi, Ugo

AU - de Rooij, Thijs

AU - Walsh, R. Matthew

AU - Zeh, Herbert J.

AU - Hughes, Steven J.

AU - Nakamura, Yoshiharu

AU - Vollmer, Charles M.

AU - Kooby, David A.

AU - Asbun, Horacio J.

AU - Asbun, Horacio J.

AU - Barkun, Jeffrey

AU - Besselink, Marc GH

AU - Boggi, Ugo

AU - Conlon, Kevin CP

AU - Han, Ho Seong

AU - Hansen, Paul D.

AU - Kendrick, Michael L.

AU - Kooby, David A.

AU - Montagnini, Andre L.

AU - Palanivelu, C.

AU - Røsok, Bård I.

AU - Shrikhande, Shailesh V.

AU - Wakabayashi, Go

AU - Zeh, Herbert

AU - Vollmer, Charles M.

AU - the Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Background Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. The aim was to conduct an assessment of the best-evidence and expert opinion on the current status and future challenges of MIPD. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed and best-evidence presented at a State-of-the-Art conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection. Expert panel discussion and audience response activity was used to assess perceived value and future direction. Results From 582 studies, 26 comparative trials of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were assessed for perioperative outcomes. There were no randomized controlled trials and all available comparative studies were determined of low quality. Several observational and case-matched studies demonstrate longer operative times, but less estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay for MIPD. Registry-based studies demonstrate increased mortality rates after MIPD in low-volume centers. Oncologic assessment demonstrates comparable outcomes of MIPD. Expert opinion supports ongoing evaluation of MIPD. Conclusion MIPD appears to provide similar perioperative and oncologic outcomes in selected patients, when performed at experienced, high-volume centers. Its overall role in pancreatoduodenectomy needs to be better defined. Improved training opportunities, registry participation and prospective evaluation are needed.

AB - Background Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. The aim was to conduct an assessment of the best-evidence and expert opinion on the current status and future challenges of MIPD. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed and best-evidence presented at a State-of-the-Art conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection. Expert panel discussion and audience response activity was used to assess perceived value and future direction. Results From 582 studies, 26 comparative trials of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were assessed for perioperative outcomes. There were no randomized controlled trials and all available comparative studies were determined of low quality. Several observational and case-matched studies demonstrate longer operative times, but less estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay for MIPD. Registry-based studies demonstrate increased mortality rates after MIPD in low-volume centers. Oncologic assessment demonstrates comparable outcomes of MIPD. Expert opinion supports ongoing evaluation of MIPD. Conclusion MIPD appears to provide similar perioperative and oncologic outcomes in selected patients, when performed at experienced, high-volume centers. Its overall role in pancreatoduodenectomy needs to be better defined. Improved training opportunities, registry participation and prospective evaluation are needed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85015451367&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85015451367&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.hpb.2017.01.023

DO - 10.1016/j.hpb.2017.01.023

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 215

EP - 224

JO - HPB

JF - HPB

SN - 1365-182X

IS - 3

ER -