Minimally invasive versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an entropy balancing analysis.


Journal

HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association
ISSN: 1477-2574
Titre abrégé: HPB (Oxford)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100900921

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
14 Sep 2023
Historique:
received: 21 10 2022
revised: 25 06 2023
accepted: 11 09 2023
medline: 30 9 2023
pubmed: 30 9 2023
entrez: 29 9 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (MI-RAMPS) remain to be established in pancreatic cancer (PDAC) METHODS: Eighty-five open (O)-RAMPS were compared to 93 MI-RAMPS. The entropy balance matching approach was used to compare the two cohorts, eliminating the selection bias. Three models were created. Model 1 made O-RAMPS equal to the MI-RAMPS cohort (i.e., compared the two procedures for resectable PDAC); model 2 made MI-RAMPS equal to O-RAMPS (i.e., compared the two procedures for borderline-resectable PDAC); model 3, compared robotic and laparoscopic RAMPS. O-RAMPS and MI-RAMPS showed "non-small" differences for BMI, comorbidity, back pain, tumor size, vascular resection, anterior or posterior RAMPS, multi-visceral resection, stump management, grading, and neoadjuvant therapy. Before reweighting, O-RAMPS had fewer clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulae (CR-POPF) (20.0% vs. 40.9%; p = 0.003), while MI-RAMPS had a higher mean of lymph nodes (25.7 vs. 31.7; p = 0.011). In model 1, MI-RAMPS and O-RAMPS achieved similar results. In model 2, O-RAMPS was associated with lower comprehensive complication index scores (MD = 11.2; p = 0.038), and CR-POPF rates (OR = 0.2; p = 0.001). In model 3, robotic-RAMPS had a higher probability of negative resection margins. In patients with anatomically resectable PDAC, MI-RAMPS is feasible and as safe as O-RAMPS.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (MI-RAMPS) remain to be established in pancreatic cancer (PDAC) METHODS: Eighty-five open (O)-RAMPS were compared to 93 MI-RAMPS. The entropy balance matching approach was used to compare the two cohorts, eliminating the selection bias. Three models were created. Model 1 made O-RAMPS equal to the MI-RAMPS cohort (i.e., compared the two procedures for resectable PDAC); model 2 made MI-RAMPS equal to O-RAMPS (i.e., compared the two procedures for borderline-resectable PDAC); model 3, compared robotic and laparoscopic RAMPS.
RESULTS RESULTS
O-RAMPS and MI-RAMPS showed "non-small" differences for BMI, comorbidity, back pain, tumor size, vascular resection, anterior or posterior RAMPS, multi-visceral resection, stump management, grading, and neoadjuvant therapy. Before reweighting, O-RAMPS had fewer clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulae (CR-POPF) (20.0% vs. 40.9%; p = 0.003), while MI-RAMPS had a higher mean of lymph nodes (25.7 vs. 31.7; p = 0.011). In model 1, MI-RAMPS and O-RAMPS achieved similar results. In model 2, O-RAMPS was associated with lower comprehensive complication index scores (MD = 11.2; p = 0.038), and CR-POPF rates (OR = 0.2; p = 0.001). In model 3, robotic-RAMPS had a higher probability of negative resection margins.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
In patients with anatomically resectable PDAC, MI-RAMPS is feasible and as safe as O-RAMPS.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37775352
pii: S1365-182X(23)01937-8
doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.09.013
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Claudio Ricci (C)

Division of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, via Albertoni 15, Italy; Department of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: claudio.ricci6@unibo.it.

Emanuele F Kauffmann (EF)

Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Italy.

Michele Pagnanelli (M)

Section of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy.

Claudio Fiorillo (C)

Digestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS di Roma, Largo Agostino Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; CRMPG (Gemelli Pancreatic Advanced Research Center), Italy.

Ferrari Cecilia (F)

Department of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Saint-Eloi Hospital, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France.

Vito De Blasi (V)

Department of Surgery, Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg.

Fabrizio Panaro (F)

Department of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Saint-Eloi Hospital, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France.

Edoardo Rosso (E)

Department of Surgery, Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg.

Alessandro Zerbi (A)

Section of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.

Sergio Alfieri (S)

Digestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS di Roma, Largo Agostino Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; CRMPG (Gemelli Pancreatic Advanced Research Center), Italy.

Ugo Boggi (U)

Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Italy.

Riccardo Casadei (R)

Division of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, via Albertoni 15, Italy; Department of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy.

Classifications MeSH