Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 4, 2026
Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy With Modified Blumgart Pancreaticojejunostomy
Published on: June 17, 2018
Improved perioperative outcomes with minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: results from a population-based
Hop S Tran Cao1, Nicole Lopez2, David C Chang2
1Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston2Department of Surgery, UC San Diego Health System, University of California, San Diego.
Importance:
Interest in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has grown in recent years, but currently available data are limited. Greater insight into application patterns and outcomes may be gained from a national database inquiry.
Objectives:
To study trends in the use of MIDP and compare the short-term outcomes of MIDP with those of open distal pancreatectomy.
Design, Setting, And Participants:
Population-based retrospective cohort study evaluating perioperative outcomes and hospital charge measures for distal pancreatectomy, comparing the surgical approaches and adjusting for patient- and hospital-level factors, among patients undergoing elective distal pancreatectomy from 1998 to 2009 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample in a 20% stratified sample of all US hospitals.
Main Outcomes And Measures:
In-hospital mortality, rates of perioperative complications and splenectomy, total charges, and length of stay.
Results:
A total of 8957 distal pancreatectomies were included in this analysis, of which 382 (4.3%) were MIDPs. On a national level, this projected to 42,320 open distal pancreatectomies and 1908 MIDPs. The proportion of distal pancreatectomies performed via minimally invasive approaches tripled between 1998 and 2009, from 2.4% to 7.3%. The groups were comparable for sex and comorbidity profiles, while patients who underwent MIDP were 1.5 years older. On multivariate analysis, MIDP was associated with lower rates of overall predischarge complications, including lower incidences of postoperative infections and bleeding complications, as well as a shorter length of stay by 1.22 days. There were no differences in rates of in-hospital mortality, concomitant splenectomy, or total charges.
Conclusions And Relevance:
This population-based study of MIDP reveals that the application of this approach has tripled in practice and provides strong evidence that MIDP has evolved into a safe option in the treatment of benign and malignant pancreatic diseases.
Insights
Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) use tripled from 1998-2009. MIDP is a safe option, showing fewer complications and shorter stays than open surgery, with similar mortality and costs.
Area of Science:
- Surgical Oncology
- Gastroenterology
- Health Services Research
Background:
- Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) interest is growing, but data are limited.
- National database inquiry can provide insight into MIDP application and outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To examine trends in MIDP utilization.
- To compare short-term outcomes of MIDP versus open distal pancreatectomy.
Main Methods:
- Population-based retrospective cohort study (1998-2009).
- Utilized Nationwide Inpatient Sample (20% stratified sample).
- Compared perioperative outcomes and hospital charges for MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy, adjusting for patient and hospital factors.
Main Results:
- MIDP use tripled between 1998 and 2009 (2.4% to 7.3%).
- MIDP associated with lower overall predischarge complications (infections, bleeding) and shorter length of stay (1.22 days).
- No significant differences in in-hospital mortality, splenectomy rates, or total charges.
Conclusions:
- MIDP application has tripled, indicating increased adoption.
- MIDP is a safe and effective surgical option for pancreatic diseases.
- Evidence supports MIDP as a viable alternative to open surgery.
