Table 2.
Comparison of oncological outcomes between LDP and ODP for pancreatic cancer
| Author | Year | Study design | Country | n | R0 rate, % | P | Harvested LNs | P | AT rate, % | P | MST, mo | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kooby 80 | 2010 | Rter | USA NCDB) | LDP | 23 | 74.0 | .98 | 13.8 ± 8.4 | .47 | 57.0 | .23 | 16 | .71 |
| ODP | 189 | 73.0 | 12.5 ± 8.5 | 70.0 | 16 | ||||||||
| Magge 81 | 2013 | Rter | USA | LDP | 28 | 86.0 | >.99 | 12 (6‐19） | .75 | ‐ | ‐ | HR 1.11, P = .80 | |
| ODP | 34 | 88.0 | 11 (8‐20） | ‐ | |||||||||
| Rehman 82 | 2014 | Pros | UK | LDP | 8 | 88.0 | .794 | 16 (1‐27） | .53 | ‐ | ‐ | 33 | .91 |
| ODP | 14 | 86.0 | 14 (0‐26） | ‐ | 52 | ||||||||
| Lee 83 | 2014 | PSM | Korea | LDP | 12 | 70.0 | .426 | 11.7 ± 7.2 | .887 | 70.0. | .765 | 60 | .616 |
| ODP | 78 | 87.5 | 12.1 ± 8.1 | 650 | 60.72 | ||||||||
| Hu 84 | 2014 | Pros | China | LDP | 11 | 100 | ‐ | 14.8 ± 4.5 | .875 | ‐ | ‐ | 5ys, 22% | n.s. |
| ODP | 23 | 100 | 16.1 ± 5.7 | ‐ | 5ys, 20% | ||||||||
| Sharpe 85 | 2015 | Retr | USA NCDB) | LDO | 144 | 87.0 | .042 | 14.9 ± 10.0 | .085 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| ODP | 625 | 78.0 | 13.3 ± 9.9 | ‐ | ‐ | ||||||||
| Shin 86 | 2015 | Retr | Korea | LDP | 70 | 75.7 | .22 | 12 (1‐34) | .13 | 78.6 | .18 | 33.4 | .25 |
| ODP | 80 | 83.8 | 10 (1‐64) | 68.8 | 29.1 | ||||||||
| Sulpice 87 | 2015 | Retr | France (FHD) | LDP | 347 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 62.5 | <.0001 |
| ODP | 2406 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 36.7 | ||||||||
| Zhang 88 | 2015 | Retr | China | LDP | 17 | 94.1 | .65 | 9 (5‐15) | .534 | 76.5 | 1.00 | 14 | .802 |
| ODP | 34 | 85.3 | 8 (2‐22) | 76.5 | 14 | ||||||||
| Stauffer 89 | 2016 | Retr | USA | LDP | 44 | 95.5 | .1012 | 25.9 (5‐48) | .0001 | 75.6 | 1.00 | 3ys, 44% | .22 |
| ODP | 28 | 82.8 | 12.7 (1‐45) | 75.0 | 3ys, 41% | ||||||||
| Zhang 90 | 2017 | Retr | China | LDP | 22 | 91.0 | .61 | 11.2 ± 4.6 | .44 | ‐ | ‐ | 29.6 | .34 |
| ODP | 76 | 87.0 | 14.4 ± 5.5 | ‐ | 27.6 | ||||||||
| Kantor 91 | 2017 | Retr | USA | LDP | 349 | 82.2 | <.01 | 14.0 ± 11.7 | .31 | 67.9 | .05 | 29.9 | .09 |
| ODP | 1205 | 75.1 | 14.8 ± 12.0 | 61.8 | 24 | ||||||||
| Bauman 92 | 2018 | Pros | USA | LDP | 33 | 77 | .53 | 14.5 ± 1.1 | .07 | 61.0 | .83 | 5ys, 20% | .39 |
| ODP | 46 | 87 | 17.5 ± 1.2 | 63.0 | 5ys, 15% | ||||||||
| Raoof 93 | 2018 | PSM | USA (NCDB) | LDP | 563 | 85.1 | .11 | 12 (7‐18) | .759 | ‐ | ‐ | HR 0.93, p = 0.457 | |
| ODP | 563 | 81.5 | 12 (6‐18.5) | ‐ | |||||||||
| van Hilst 94 | 2019 | PSM | Europe | LDP | 340 | 67.0 | .019 | 14 (8‐22) | <.001 | 76.0 | .561 | 28 | .774 |
| ODP | 340 | 58.0 | 22 (14‐31) | 73.0 | 31 | ||||||||
Abbreviations: 3ys, three year survival; 5ys, five year survival; AT rate, induction rate of adjuvant treatment; FHD, French healthcare databases; HR, hazard ratio; LDP, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy; LN, lymph node; mo, months; MST, median survival time; NCDB National Cancer Database; ODP, open distal pancreatectomy; Pros, prospective study; PSM, propensity score matching analysis; Retr, retrospective study.