Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms: a two-center comparative study

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms: a two-center comparative study 腹腔镜与开腹胰体尾切除术双中心对照研究 1 first-author 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 corresp ‡Corresponding Authors ‡Corresponding Authors †E-mail:mouyiping2002@163.comlou.wenhui@zs-hospital.sh.cn †E-mail:mouyiping2002@163.comlou.wenhui@zs-hospital.sh.cn mouyiping2002@163.com 2 corresp ‡Corresponding Authors ‡Corresponding Authors †E-mail:mouyiping2002@163.comlou.wenhui@zs-hospital.sh.cn †E-mail:mouyiping2002@163.comlou.wenhui@zs-hospital.sh.cn mouyiping2002@163.com Department of General Surgery, Institute of Micro-Invasive Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310016, China Department of General Surgery, Institute of Micro-Invasive Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310016, China Department of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China Department of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China Objective: 2 To compare the peri-operative outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms in two institutions. Methods: 2 This prospective comparative study included 91 consecutive patients who underwent LDP ( n =45) or ODP ( n =46) from Jan. 2010 to Dec. 2012. Demographics, intra-operative characteristics, and post-operative outcomes were compared. Results: 2 The median operating time in the LDP group was (158.7±38.3) min compared with (92.2±24.1) min in the ODP group ( P < 0.001). Patients had lower blood loss in LDP than in the ODP (122.6±61.1) ml vs. (203.1±84.8) ml, P < 0.001). The rates of splenic conservation between the LDP and ODP groups were similar (53.3% vs. 47.8%, P =0.35). All spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomies were conducted with vessel preservation. LDP also demonstrated better post-operative outcomes. The time to oral intake and normal daily activities was faster in the LDP group than in the ODP group (1.6±0.5) d vs. (3.2±0.7) d, P < 0.01; (1.8±0.4) d vs. (2.1±0.6) d, P =0.02, respectively), and the postoperative length of hospital stay in LDP was shorter than that in ODP (7.9±3.8) d vs. (11.9±5.8) d, P =0.006). No difference in tumor size (4.7±3.2) cm vs. (4.5±1.8) cm, P =0.77) or overall pancreatic fistula rate (15.6% vs. 19.6%, P =0.62) was found between the groups, while the overall post-operative complication rate was lower in the LDP group (26.7% vs. 47.8%, P =0.04). Conclusions: 2 LDP is safe and effective for benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms, featuring lower blood loss and substantially faster recovery. 目的 2 评估腹腔镜胰体尾切除术安全有效性，对比腹腔镜胰体尾切除术与开腹胰体尾切除术治疗胰腺体尾部良性或低度恶性病变临床疗效。 创新点 2 本研究为回顾性对照研究，相较于过往腹腔镜胰体尾切除术与开腹胰体尾切除术的对照研究，其创新点一为本组91例病例均为良性或低度恶性病例，剔除了恶性病变病例；二为本研究中腹腔镜胰体尾切除术组及开腹胰体尾切除术组分别由两家大型综合医院胰腺疾病诊治中心的两组医生分别施行手术，这样避免了病人及手术方式选择等造成的影响，结果更为客观。 方法 2 回顾分析自2010年1月至2012年12月浙江大学医学院附属邵逸夫医院45例施行腹腔镜胰体尾切除术治疗胰腺体尾部良性或低度恶性病变病例（LDP组），以及同期上海复旦大学附属中山医院46例施行开腹胰体尾切除术胰腺体尾部良性或低度恶性病变病例（ODP组）的相关临床资料，进行对照研究。 结论 2 本研究包括胰腺体尾部良性或低度恶性病例91例，其中LDP组45例（无中转开腹）和ODP组46例。手术时间分别为(158.7±38.3)min（LDP组）和(92.2±24.1)min（ODP组）；术中出血LDP组明显少于ODP组（(122.6±61.1)ml vs. (203.1±84.8)ml，P<0.001）。两组保脾率相似（53.3% vs. 47.8%，P=0.35），其中LDP组中保脾病例均保留脾血管。在术后恢复指标方面，LDP组优于ODP组，恢复进食流质时间（(1.6±0.5)d vs. (3.2±0.7)d，P<0.01）及恢复活动时间（(1.8±0.4)d vs. (2.1±0.6)d，P=0.02）较短，且LDP组术后住院时间也少于ODP组（(7.9±3.8)d vs. (11.9±5.8)d，P=0.006）。术后胰瘘率两组无明显差异（15.6% vs. 19.6%，P=0.62），但术中总并发症率LDP组低于ODP组（26.7% vs. 47.8%，P=0.04）。研究结果显示腹腔镜胰体尾切除术治疗胰腺体尾部良性或低度恶性肿瘤安全可行，与开腹胰体尾切除术术相比术中出血更少、术后恢复更快，具有明显微创优势。 Laparoscopy Distal pancreatic resection Pancreatic neoplasm Splenic preservation Pancreatic benign tumors 胰腺肿瘤 腹腔镜 胰体尾切除术 Introduction 1 Application of minimally invasive techniques, i.e. laparoscopic pancreatic surgery, in the management of distal pancreatic lesions is increasing. It is particularly adapted to distal pancreatic surgery because of the absence of anastomosis in this surgery. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) was first reported by Cuschieri ( 1994 1994 ). Since then, several case series (Melotti et al., 2007 2007 ; Taylor et al., 2008 2008 ; Song et al., 2011 2011 ), comparative cohort studies (Mabrut et al., 2005 2005 ; Kooby et al., 2008 2008 ; Jayaraman et al., 2010 2010 ), and meta-analysis reports (Jusoh and Ammori, 2012 2012 ; Pericleous et al., 2012 2012 ; Xie et al., 2012 2012 ; Nakamura and Nakashima, 2013 2013 ) have shown that LDP provides similar advantages that have been demonstrated for other minimally invasive surgeries. In patients who underwent laparoscopic surgeries, there were fewer surgical site infections and complications, and decreased length of stay and expenses compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) (Fox et al., 2012 2012 ; Kneuertz et al., 2012 2012 ; Venkat et al., 2012 2012 ). Laparoscopy seems to be under-utilized for distal pancreas resection owing to the complexity of the procedure, the high requirement of technical skills by the surgeon in dissecting the important vascular, and the lower acceptance in the resection of malignant lesions. Further, the limitations of selection bias, small sample size, and pooling of multi-institutional data have hindered a meaningful comparative trial of LDP and ODP. Randomized, controlled trials comparing LDP with the ODP are limited. No consensus exists for or against the use of the laparoscopic approach for distal pancreatectomy in benign and malignant lesions. To better elucidate the benefits of LDP, here we report a prospective comparative study of the two approaches at two high-volume institutions, aiming to systematically compare the peri-operative outcomes of LDP with ODP for benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms. Materials and methods 1 Patients 2 This two-center study was performed from Jan. 2010 to Dec. 2012. Data from 91 consecutive patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy in the Department of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University (Shanghai, China) and the Department of General Surgery, Institute of Micro-Invasive Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University (Hangzhou, China) entered into our surgical database. This study had been approved by the ethics boards of the two hospitals, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Patients with benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms were screened with thin slice computerized tomography or magnetic resonance imaging before the operation. Patients with malignant tumors, pregnant or lactating women, or those with child-bearing potential, patients who had multiple organ resections during distal pancreatectomy or a history of abdominal surgery, were excluded. Pre-operative variables included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), significant co-morbidity, operation history, hepatic and renal function, coagulation function, carcinoembryonic antigen, CA19-9, and α-fetoprotein. Intra-operative variables such as operative time, operative blood loss, as well as post-operative time to resume normal daily activities and first time of oral intake, were recorded. Data for post-operative complications within 30 d of the operation were gathered, such as pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infections, intestinal adhesion and ileus. The indications for surgical resection of pancreatic cystic neoplasms in our study were as follows: (1) tumor size larger than 4 cm; (2) after surveillance for rapid rate of growth; (3) presence of symptoms such as abdominal pain or distension; (4) inability to definitely exclude a premalignant or malignant tumor. Distal pancreatectomy was defined as resection of the pancreas to the left of the portal vein, with or without splenic conservation. Pancreatic fistula and delayed gastric emptying was defined according to the guidelines of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistulas (ISGPF) (Bassi et al., 2005 2005 ; Wente et al., 2007 2007 ). Operative time was defined as the time between patient entry into and exit from the operation room. Post-operative diet began on the first day after first bowel gurgles. Length of stay was calculated from date of operation to date of hospital discharge. Peri-operative mortality was defined as death within 30 d of the operation or within the same hospital admission as the operation. Surgical procedure 2 ODP 3 All the ODP surgeries were done by one group of surgeons in Zhongshan Hospital (Shanghai, China). The peritoneal cavity was entered by subcostal incision. The gastrocolic ligament was divided and the omental sac opened. After careful intra-operative exploration, we proceeded to resection the pancreas. The superior and inferior borders of the pancreas were defined, and the splenic vessels were identified and preserved or ligated depending on whether splenic preservation was to be performed. The pancreas was mobilized and transected with the Endo-GIA stapler. At the end of the operation, a drain was placed into the left subdiaphragmatic area. Attempts were made in all patients to conserve the spleen. To avoid the occurrence of splenic infarction or splenic abscess, we used the surgical technique for splenic salvage with conservation of the splenic artery and vein, rather than ligation of the splenic pedicle with preservation of the short gastric vessels (Warshaw, 1988 1988 ). A splenectomy was performed during distal pancreatectomy for the following reasons: (1) splenic infarction, thrombosis of the splenic vessels, or regional portal hypertension; (2) difficult dissection from the splenic vessels or splenic hilum; (3) intra-operative bleeding from the splenic vessels or the spleen. LDP 3 All the LDP surgery was done by one group of surgeons in the Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital (Hangzhou, China). The technique for LDP has been described elsewhere (Abu Hilal et al., 2009 2009 ). In short, five ports (three 5-mm ports and two 10/12-mm ports) were used. Typically, the first trocar—preferably optical—was inserted in the umbilicus. The remaining trocars were placed as follows: two 5-mm trocars were placed in the subcostal area in the anterior axillary line on both sides; a 12-mm trocar was placed outside the right rectus abdominis 2 cm above the umbilicus, which permits use of an Endo-GIA stapler, and a 5-mm trocar on the opposite left side. After establishing laparoscopic access, the pancreas was exposed through the division of the lesser sac. The splenic attachments and the short gastric vessels were divided. The splenic vessels were dissected from the pancreas to the splenic hilum. The pancreas was transected with the Endo-GIA stapler. When simultaneous splenectomy was being performed, the splenic artery and vein were ligated and divided. If imaging examination before operation indicated a splenic preservation, the pancreas was dissected off the splenic vessels; tributary vessels were treated with the harmonic scalpel or clips. Splenic vessels were all conserved during spleen-preserving pancreatectomies. The specimen was then placed in an endoscopic bag. A minilaparotomy can be carried out at the umbilical port. Peritoneal drains were placed adjacent to the pancreatic remnant and brought out of the abdomen through the 5-mm port sites. In case of intra-operative bleeding from the splenic vessels or the spleen, a conversion from LDP to ODP was necessary. Statistical analysis 2 Demographic, procedural, and post-operative data were documented. Continuous variables were reported as mean±standard error (SE). Categorical variables were reported as number and percentage. Continuous variables were compared using Student’s t -test. Categorical variables were compared using Pearson’s chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test as appropriate. A P -value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were conducted using the SPSS 15.0 statistical software program (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Results 1 Demographics and pre-operative clinical information 2 Nighty-one patients (58 females and 33 males) successfully underwent LDP ( n =45) or ODP ( n =46) for a benign or premalignant tumor of the distal pancreas during the study period. Between the LDP and ODP groups, there were no significant intergroup differences in the following clinical factors: age, sex, or body mass index (BMI) (Table 1 1 ). The final histological results were as follows: neuroendocrine tumor (21), serous cystic neoplasm (32), solid pseudopapillary tumors (17), mucinous cystic neoplasm (13), and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (8) (Table 2 2 ). Data are expressed as mean±SE ( n =46 for ODP or n =45 for LDP) CVD: cardiovascular disorder; HGB: hemoglobin 2 Group 2 Age (year) 2 Number 2 BMI (kg/m 2 ) * * 3 Number 2 HGB (g/L) * * 2 Albumin (g/L) * * Male Female Diabetes mellitus CVD Chronic pancreatitis  ODP 50.1±14.3 18 28 21.6±1.6 3 11 3 12.8±1.2 41.5±3.8  LDP 50.5±15.1 15 30 22.1±2.9 4 7 0 13.3±1.1 42.8±4.7 10 P -value 0.86 2 0.52 0.30 0.71 0.34 0.24 0.07 0.15 Group Number Neuroendocrine tumor Serous cystic neoplasm Mucinous cystic neoplasm Solid pesudopaplillary tumors Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm ODP 46 12 13 6 9 6 LDP 45 9 19 7 8 2 Total 91 21 32 13 17 8 Intra-operative outcomes 2 No patient in the LDP group was converted to ODP. The median operative time in the LDP group was (158.7±38.3) min compared with (92.2±24.1) min in the ODP group ( P < 0.001). Intra-operative blood loss in the LDP group was lower than that in the ODP group (122.6±61.1) ml vs. (203.1±84.8) ml, P < 0.001). The rates of splenic conservation between the LDP and ODP groups were similar (53.3% vs. 47.8%, P =0.35). Splenic vessels were all preserved during spleen-preserving pancreatectomies. No obvious difference in tumor size between the groups was observed (4.7±3.2) cm vs. (4.5±1.8) cm, P =0.77; Table 3 3 ). Data are expressed as mean±SE ( n =46 for ODP or n =45 for LDP) or percentage (count/total) Group Operative time (min) Operative blood loss (ml) Tumor size (cm) Spleen preservation rate (%) Conversion from ODP to LDP ODP 92.2±24.1 203.1±84.8 4.5±1.8 47.8 (22/46) LDP 158.7±38.3 122.6±61.1 4.7±3.2 53.3 (24/45) 0 6 P -value 0 0 0.77 0.35 Post-operative outcomes 2 No patient died in the ODP group or LDP group, or needed a re-operation. The overall post-operative complication rates were lower in the LDP group compared with the ODP group (26.7% vs. 47.8%, P =0.04; Table 4 4 ). The overall pancreatic fistula rates between the LDP and ODP groups were similar (15.6% vs. 19.6%, P =0.62). A pancreatic fistula developed in nine patients in the ODP group (7 Grade A and 2 Grade B) versus seven patients in the LDP group (5 Grade A and 2 Grade B). Time to oral intake and time to resume normal daily activities were significantly faster in the LDP group than in the ODP group (1.6±0.5) d vs. (3.2±0.7) d, P < 0.01; (1.8±0.4) d vs. (2.1±0.6) d, P =0.02, respectively). The post-operative length of hospital stay was also shorter in the LDP group compared with the ODP group (7.9±3.8) d vs. (11.9±5.8) d, P =0.006; Table 4 4 ). Data are expressed as percentage (count/total) Data are expressed as mean±SE ( n =46 for ODP or n =45 for LDP) Outcome ODP LDP P -value Total morbidity (%) 0 0 Total operative complications (%) a a 47.8 (22/46) 26.7 (12/45) 0.04 Extra-abdominal complications ( n )  Urinary tract infection 1 0  Pulmonary infection 2 2  Cardiovascular complication 2 0 Abdominal complications ( n )  Bleeding 1 1  Incision infection 3 0  Intestinal adhesion 2 1  Delayed gastric emptying 2 1 Pancreatic fistula (%) a a 19.6 (9/46) 15.6 (7/45) 0.62  Grade A ( n ) 7 5 1  Grade B ( n ) 2 2 1  Grade C ( n ) 0 0 Time to resume normal daily activities (d) b b 2.1±0.6 1.8±0.4 0.02 Post-operative time until oral intake (d) b b 3.2±0.7 1.6±0.5 0 Post-operative length of hospital stay (d) b b 11.9±5.8 7.9±3.8 0.006 Discussion 1 In this prospective two-center comparative study of clinical outcomes for LDP and ODP, we demonstrated that LDP is a feasible, safe, and efficient approach for benign or premalignant pancreatic neoplasms. We observed less blood loss, an earlier return to normal bowel movement, and a significantly shorter post-operative length of stay in the LDP group compared with ODP. The overall morbidity in our study was not different between the LDP and ODP groups, indicating similar safety profiles of the two surgical approaches. These findings are consistent with the best case series published so far (Baker et al., 2009 2009 ; Casadei et al., 2010 2010 ; Vijan et al., 2010 2010 ; Abu Hilal et al., 2012 2012 ; Soh et al., 2012 2012 ). The highlight of this study is that all the pancreatic lesions in the two groups were benign or of low grade. The pathology and the lesion’s size are two main factors that influence the operative difficulty during a distal pancreatectomy. When we compare LDP with ODP, the operative difficulty between two groups should be taken into account because it will influence the feasibility and peri-operative outcomes, such as blood loss, operation time, splenic conservation rate, and morbidity. Further, it is notable that the LDP and the ODP in our study were practiced by specialized surgeon teams in two high-volume centers separately, who specifically focus on laparoscopic pancreatic surgery and the open pancreatic approach. Thus, the selection bias in this two-center comparative study can be avoided to a certain degree. In contrast to most studies showing that LDP had shorter operation time, we observed a converse result: the median operative time in the LDP group was longer than that in the ODP group. We can rationalize this difference by the skilled practice of the open surgery team. In fact, the operation times of the LDP (158.7±38.3) min) and ODP (92.2±24.1) min) groups in our study are shorter than most of the former studies, which reflects benign pathology of all the lesions. Another interesting finding of our study is the high rate of splenic conservation in the LDP group (55.6%). The patients who underwent laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy had significantly shorter operative time and less blood loss compared with those who underwent concomitant splenectomy (Shoup et al., 2002 2002 ; Goh et al., 2008 2008 ; Lee et al., 2008 2008 ; Mekeel et al., 2011 2011 ; Butturini et al., 2012 2012 ). The rate of splenic conservation in former studies of LDP varied from 2% to 70% (Shoup et al., 2002 2002 ; Goh et al., 2008 2008 ; Lee et al., 2008 2008 ; Casadei et al., 2010 2010 ; Vijan et al., 2010 2010 ; Abu Hilal et al., 2012 2012 ; Butturini et al., 2012 2012 ). However, most of the former comparative studies included both malignant and benign lesions. Therefore, the high rate of spleen preservation may be attributed to the high rate of malignant lesions in the open group, and the fact that many lesions in the open group were inflammatory strictures secondary to pancreatitis. In our study, considering that all the lesions were benign in both the LDP and the ODP groups, the higher rate of splenic conservation in the LDP group demonstrates a noteworthy advantage of LDP over ODP. Spleen conservation could be achieved by carefully dissecting the splenic vessels off the pancreas parenchyma or by resecting the main splenic vessels en bloc with the pancreas but maintaining the short gastric vessels and left gastroepiploic arcade to ensure the collateral blood supply to the spleen (Warshaw, 1988 1988 ). In our study, spleen conservation was accomplished by preserving the main splenic artery and vein. We think that the better vision afforded by the magnification using the laparoscopic instrument and the subtle laparoscopic manipulations available assist in the fine dissection of the pancreas off the splenic artery and vein, resulting in higher splenic conservation rates. The incidence of post-operative pancreatic fistula, the most common major morbidity after distal pancreatectomy, was not different in this study. Encompassing all grades of fistula, we observed a fistula rate of 15.6% in the LDP group, which is comparable or favorable to that reported by others. Several studies investigated different approaches to prevent pancreatic fistula in distal pancreatectomy. However, none of these methods could reduce the rate of pancreatic fistula significantly. In this study, we routinely used the mechanical linear staplers. The LDP group used small staples (2.5–3.5 mm) depending on the texture of the pancreas (2.5 mm for thin pancreases and 3.5 mm for thick pancreases), whereas the ODP prefers large staples (4.5 mm). In this study, the pre-operative variables such as demographics, blood profiles, and co-morbid conditions were comparable between the two groups, indicating that patients are relatively alike in terms of their pre-operative status and subsequent comparisons are more meaningful. Although we attempted to circumvent selection bias, a certain degree of bias is inherent between the two institutions in the comparative study. Another limitation of this study is the relatively small number of cases. As distal pancreatectomy is an infrequent procedure, enrolment of large numbers of cases may be a difficult task. In summary, the findings in this study confirmed the safety and efficacy of LDP for the treatment of benign and premalignant lesions in the pancreatic body and tail. This laparoscopic approach is associated with less operative blood loss and hospitalization fast recovery compared with ODP. LDP may be progressively adopted as the “gold standard” for the management of benign and premalignant pancreatic lesions. Further studies on the oncologic quality and more prospective randomized comparative trials for LDP should be performed before applying this to the management of pancreatic malignancies. References M Abu Hilal , G Jain , F Kasasbeh , 等 . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: critical analysis of preliminary experience from a tertiary referral centre . Surg Endosc , 2009 . 23 ( 12 ): 2743 - 2747 . 19462202 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0499-y http://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0499-y . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: critical analysis of preliminary experience from a tertiary referral centre M Abu Hilal , M Hamdan , F Di Fabio , 等 . Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a clinical and cost-effectiveness study . Surg Endosc , 2012 . 26 ( 6 ): 1670 - 1674 . 22179475 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-2090-6 http://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2090-6 . Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a clinical and cost-effectiveness study MS Baker , DJ Bentrem , MB Ujiki , 等 . A prospective single institution comparison of peri-operative outcomes for laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy . Surgery , 2009 . 146 ( 4 ): 635 - 643 . 19789022 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.06.045 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2009.06.045 . A prospective single institution comparison of peri-operative outcomes for laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy C Bassi , C Dervenis , G Butturini , 等 . Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition . Surgery , 2005 . 138 ( 1 ): 8 - 13 . 16003309 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.05.001 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2005.05.001 . Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition G Butturini , M Inama , G Malleo , 等 . Perioperative and long-term results of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with or without splenic vessels conservation: a retrospective analysis . J Surg Oncol , 2012 . 105 ( 4 ): 387 - 392 . 22025322 DOI: 10.1002/jso.22117 http://doi.org/10.1002/jso.22117 . Perioperative and long-term results of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with or without splenic vessels conservation: a retrospective analysis R Casadei , C Ricci , M D'Ambra , 等 . Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in pancreatic tumours: a case-control study . Updates Surg , 2010 . 62 ( 3-4 ): 171 - 174 . 21052893 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-010-0027-6 http://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-010-0027-6 . Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in pancreatic tumours: a case-control study A Cuschieri . Laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas . J R Coll Surg Edinb , 1994 . 39 ( 3 ): 178 - 184 . 7932341 . Laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas AM Fox , K Pitzul , F Bhojani , 等 . Comparison of outcomes and costs between laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open resection at a single center . Surg Endosc , 2012 . 26 ( 5 ): 1220 - 1230 . 22179451 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-2061-y http://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2061-y . Comparison of outcomes and costs between laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open resection at a single center BK Goh , YM Tan , YF Chung , 等 . Critical appraisal of 232 consecutive distal pancreatectomies with emphasis on risk factors, outcome, and management of the postoperative pancreatic fistula: a 21-year experience at a single institution . Arch Surg , 2008 . 143 ( 10 ): 956 - 965 . 18936374 DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.143.10.956 http://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.143.10.956 . Critical appraisal of 232 consecutive distal pancreatectomies with emphasis on risk factors, outcome, and management of the postoperative pancreatic fistula: a 21-year experience at a single institution S Jayaraman , M Gonen , MF Brennan , 等 . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: evolution of a technique at a single institution . J Am Coll Surg , 2010 . 211 ( 4 ): 503 - 509 . 20868976 DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.06.010 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.06.010 . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: evolution of a technique at a single institution AC Jusoh , BJ Ammori . Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies . Surg Endosc , 2012 . 26 ( 4 ): 904 - 913 . 22083328 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-2016-3 http://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2016-3 . Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies PJ Kneuertz , SH Patel , CK Chu , 等 . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: trends and lessons learned through an 11-year experience . J Am Coll Surg , 2012 . 215 ( 2 ): 167 - 176 . 22632910 DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.03.023 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.03.023 . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: trends and lessons learned through an 11-year experience DA Kooby , T Gillespie , D Bentrem , 等 . Left-sided pancreatectomy: a multicenter comparison of laparoscopic and open approaches . Ann Surg , 2008 . 248 ( 3 ): 438 - 446 . 18791364 DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318185a990 http://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318185a990 . Left-sided pancreatectomy: a multicenter comparison of laparoscopic and open approaches SE Lee , JY Jang , KU Lee , 等 . Clinical comparison of distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy . J Korean Med Sci , 2008 . 23 ( 6 ): 1011 - 1014 . 19119445 DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2008.23.6.1011 http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2008.23.6.1011 . Clinical comparison of distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy JY Mabrut , L Fernandez-Cruz , JS Azagra , 等 . Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: results of a multicenter European study of 127 patients . Surgery , 2005 . 137 ( 6 ): 597 - 605 . 15962401 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.02.002 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2005.02.002 . Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: results of a multicenter European study of 127 patients KL Mekeel , AA Moss , KS Reddy , 等 . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: does splenic preservation affect outcomes? . Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech , 2011 . 21 ( 5 ): 362 - 365 . DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e31822e0ea8 http://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0b013e31822e0ea8 . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: does splenic preservation affect outcomes? G Melotti , G Butturini , M Piccoli , 等 . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: results on a consecutive series of 58 patients . Ann Surg , 2007 . 246 ( 1 ): 77 - 82 . 17592294 DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000258607.17194.2b http://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000258607.17194.2b . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: results on a consecutive series of 58 patients M Nakamura , H Nakashima . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy: is it worthwhile? A meta-analysis of laparoscopic pancreatectomy . J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci , 2013 . 20 ( 4 ): 421 - 428 . 23224732 DOI: 10.1007/s00534-012-0578-7 http://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-012-0578-7 . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy: is it worthwhile? A meta-analysis of laparoscopic pancreatectomy S Pericleous , N Middleton , SC McKay , 等 . Systematic review and meta-analysis of case-matched studies comparing open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: is it a safe procedure? . Pancreas , 2012 . 41 ( 7 ): 993 - 1000 . 22836858 DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e31824f3669 http://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0b013e31824f3669 . Systematic review and meta-analysis of case-matched studies comparing open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: is it a safe procedure? M Shoup , MF Brennan , K McWhite , 等 . The value of splenic preservation with distal pancreatectomy . Arch Surg , 2002 . 137 ( 2 ): 164 - 168 . 11822953 DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.137.2.164 http://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.137.2.164 . The value of splenic preservation with distal pancreatectomy YF Soh , AW Kow , KY Wong , 等 . Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy: Our institution’s 5-year experience . Asian J Surg , 2012 . 35 ( 1 ): 29 - 36 . 22726561 DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2012.04.005 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2012.04.005 . Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy: Our institution’s 5-year experience KB Song , SC Kim , JB Park , 等 . Single-center experience of laparoscopic left pancreatic resection in 359 consecutive patients: changing the surgical paradigm of left pancreatic resection . Surg Endosc , 2011 . 25 ( 10 ): 3364 - 3372 . 21556993 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-1727-9 http://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1727-9 . Single-center experience of laparoscopic left pancreatic resection in 359 consecutive patients: changing the surgical paradigm of left pancreatic resection C Taylor , N O'Rourke , L Nathanson , 等 . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: the Brisbane experience of forty-six cases . HPB (Oxford) , 2008 . 10 ( 1 ): 38 - 42 . 18695757 DOI: 10.1080/13651820701802312 http://doi.org/10.1080/13651820701802312 . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: the Brisbane experience of forty-six cases R Venkat , BH Edil , RD Schulick , 等 . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis . Ann Surg , 2012 . 255 ( 6 ): 1048 - 1059 . 22511003 DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318251ee09 http://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318251ee09 . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis SS Vijan , KA Ahmed , WS Harmsen , 等 . Laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy: a single institution comparative study . Arch Surg , 2010 . 145 ( 7 ): 616 - 621 . 20644122 DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2010.120 http://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2010.120 . Laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy: a single institution comparative study AL Warshaw . Conservation of the spleen with distal pancreatectomy . Arch Surg , 1988 . 123 ( 5 ): 550 - 553 . 3358679 DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.1988.01400290032004 http://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1988.01400290032004 . Conservation of the spleen with distal pancreatectomy MN Wente , C Bassi , C Dervenis , 等 . Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) . Surgery , 2007 . 142 ( 5 ): 761 - 768 . 17981197 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2007.05.005 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.05.005 . Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) K Xie , YP Zhu , XW Xu , 等 . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is as safe and feasible as open procedure: a meta-analysis . World J Gastroenterol , 2012 . 18 ( 16 ): 1959 - 1967 . 22563178 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i16.1959 http://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v18.i16.1959 . Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is as safe and feasible as open procedure: a meta-analysis Compliance with ethics guidelines Jia-fei YAN, Tian-tao KUANG, Da-yong JI, Xiao-wu XU, Dan-song WANG, Ren-chao ZHANG, Wei-wei JIN, Yi-ping MOU, and Wen-hui LOU declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study. 10.1631/jzus.B1400257 Project supported by the Department of Health of Zhejiang Province, China (Nos. 2011ZHB003 and 2013RCB010) 2014-09-25 2015-06-16 2015-03-12 2022-01-05 Copyright © Zhejiang University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 2015 Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE B (Biomedicine and Biotechnology) 07 16