Display Settings:


Send to:

Choose Destination
We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Arch Surg. 2010 Jul;145(7):616-21. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2010.120.

Laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution comparative study.

Author information

  • 1Division of Gastroenterologic and General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.



Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) provides outcome advantages compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).


Single-institutional, retrospective review from January 1, 2004, to May 1, 2009.


Tertiary referral center.


Patients undergoing LDP (n = 100) were matched by age, pathologic diagnosis, and pancreatic specimen length to a cohort undergoing ODP (n = 100).


Perioperative outcomes and overall 30-day morbidity and mortality. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using logistic or linear regression as appropriate.


Patients in the LDP group did not differ from those in the ODP group in age (mean, 59.0 vs 58.6 years; P = .85), sex (60% vs 50% female; P = .16), body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) (mean, 27.4 vs 27.9; P = .44), or American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3 or higher (58% vs 52%; P = .39). Tumor size was greater in the ODP group than in the LDP group (mean, 4.0 vs 3.3 cm; P = .02). The LDP group as compared with the ODP group demonstrated decreased blood loss (mean, 171 vs 519 mL; P < .001) and shorter duration of hospital stay (mean, 6.1 vs 8.6 days; P < .001). There were no differences between the LDP and ODP groups in operative time (mean, 214 vs 208 minutes; P = .50), pancreatic leak rate (17% vs 17%; P > .99), overall 30-day morbidity (34% vs 29%; P = .45), and 30-day mortality (3% vs 1%; P = .62).


The laparoscopic approach to distal pancreatectomy appears to provide advantages of reduced blood loss and length of hospital stay in selected patients compared with the open approach. Overall complication rates appear similar. Patient selection bias and limits of a retrospective analysis warrant prospective validation.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk