Outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: A nationwide retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Whether laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is a feasible treatment option equivalent to open pancreatoduodenectomy remains unclear. Using a nationwide inpatient database, we investigated the postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a nationwide inpatient database in Japan. We included patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy from April 2016 to March 2018. One-to-four propensity score matching was used to compare in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, perioperative findings, and total hospitalization costs between the 2 groups. We also compared outcomes between laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and open pancreatoduodenectomy in low- and high-volume hospitals. RESULTS: We identified 2,100 eligible patients. The laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy group contained higher proportions of younger patients and patients with fewer comorbidities compared with the open pancreatoduodenectomy group. Using propensity score matching, 95 patients in the laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy group were matched with 380 patients in the open pancreatoduodenectomy group. No significant differences in in-hospital mortality or postoperative complication rates were found between the groups. Compared with the open pancreatoduodenectomy group, the laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy group showed a longer duration of anesthesia (639 vs 497 minutes; P < .001), higher proportion of unplanned mechanical ventilation (10% vs 3%; P = .007), and higher total hospitalization costs (32,242 vs 24,657 US dollars; P < .001). The subgroup analyses showed that laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a higher proportion of unplanned mechanical ventilation than open pancreatoduodenectomy but only in low-volume hospitals. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated almost no advantage of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy over open pancreatoduodenectomy. Our results suggest that laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy can be an alternative option for open pancreatoduodenectomy only in high-volume hospitals.

Outcomes of self-expandable metal stent as bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for left-sided obstructing colon cancer: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes of self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) as bridges to surgery versus emergency surgery in the treatment of left-sided obstructing colon cancer remain unclear. METHODS: Using a nationwide inpatient database in Japan, we performed one-to-one propensity score matching to compare overall survival, the stoma requirement, postoperative complications, and the length of stay between the SEMS and emergency surgery groups. RESULTS: Compared with the emergency surgery group, the SEMS group showed worse survival (hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-3.01), a higher incidence of postoperative ileus (8% vs. 4%, P = 0.010), a longer postoperative length of stay (14 vs. 12 days, P < 0.001), and a lower stoma requirement (10% vs. 29%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SEMSs as bridges to surgery are associated with significantly poorer overall survival, a higher incidence of postoperative ileus, a longer length of stay, and a lower stoma requirement than is emergency surgery.