Laparoscopic Pancreaticodudenectomy for Periampullary Tumor: Should it be a Routine? A Propensity Score-matched Study.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a complex and challenging procedure even with experienced surgeons. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and surgical and oncological outcomes of LPD compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). PATIENTS AND METHOD: This is a propensity score-matched analysis for patients with periampullary tumors who underwent PD. Patients underwent LPD and matched group underwent OPD included in the study. The primary outcome measure was the rate of total postoperative morbidities. Secondary outcomes included operative times, hospital stay, wound length and cosmosis, oncological outcomes, recurrence rate, and survival rate. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients were included in the study (37 LPD and 74 OPD). The conversion rate from LPD to OPD was 4 cases (10.8%). LPD provides significantly shorter hospital stay (7 vs. 10 d; P=0.004), less blood loss (250 vs. 450 mL, P=0.001), less postoperative pain, early oral intake, and better cosmosis. The length of the wound is significantly shorter in LPD. The operative time needed for dissection and reconstruction was significantly longer in LPD group (420 vs. 300 min; P=0.0001). Both groups were comparable as regards lymph node retrieved (15 vs. 14; P=0.21) and R0 rate (86.5% vs. 83.8%; P=0.6). No significant difference was seen as regards postoperative morbidities, re-exploration, readmission, recurrence, and survival rate. CONCLUSIONS: LPD is a feasible procedure; it provided a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, earlier oral intake, and better cosmosis than OPD. It had the same postoperative complications and oncological outcomes as OPD.

Open Cholecystectomy Has a Place in the Laparoscopic Era: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is considered the gold standard for treatment of symptomatic gallbladder stones and has replaced the traditional open cholecystectomy (OC). The aim of this study is to evaluate the proper indications of the primary OC and conversion from LC and their predictive factors. This study includes all patients who underwent cholecystectomy between January 2011 and June 2016, whether open from the start (group A), conversion from laparoscopic approach (group B), or laparoscopic cholecystectomy (group C). There were 3269 patients underwent cholecystectomy. LC was completed in 3117 (95.4%) patients. The overall conversion rate was 83 (2.5%). The main two causes of conversion were adhesion in 35 (42.2%) patients and unclear anatomy in 29 (34.9%) patients. Primary OC was indicated in 69 (2.1%) patients due to previous history of upper abdominal operations in 16 (23.2%) patients and anesthetic problem in 21 (30.4%) patients. Age >60 years, male sex, diabetic patients, history of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, dilated common bile duct, gallbladder status, adhesion, and previous upper abdominal operation were demonstrated to be independent risk factors for OC. Open cholecystectomy still has a place in the era of laparoscopy. Conversion should not be a complication, but it represents a valuable choice to avoid an additional risk. Safe OC required training because of the causes of conversion, usually unsafe anatomy, occurrence of complications, or anesthetic problems, in order to prevent disastrous complications.