• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Laparoscopic pancraticoduodenectomy: An experience and review of outcomes

Laparoscopic pancraticoduodenectomy: An experience and review of outcomes

Bing Peng, PhD, Zhong Wu, PhD, Jin Zhou, PhD

West Chinal Hospital, Sichuan University

Background: Innovations in surgical strategies and technologies have facilitated LPD. Even so, it’s not globally acknowledged alternatively approach simply done at several centres on the globe. Our research planned to evaluate the practicality and basic safety of LPD compared with open pancraticoduodenectomy OPD.

Methods: Our retrospective study enrolled 12 patients (6 female and 6 male) who underwent LPD at a single center Between November 2010 and August 2012. The mean age was 60.5 years. All the operations were attempted laparoscopically. In the mean time, we choose another 24 patients (12 female and 12 male) who received OPD. Patient characteristics, histologic variety of the tumor, morbidity, mortality and actuarial survival rates were studied.

Results: The etiology of the patients with LPD included ampullary carcinoma (n=9), low common bile duct cancer (n=3). For 4 patients, the anastomosis was performed total laparoscopy. To the remaining 8 patients, the resection was performed laparoscopically, using the renovation done via a small midline incision. No patient had conversion. Significant shorter operation time was found in OPD group of 383 minutes compared with 530 minutes in LPD group with a p value of less than 0.001. The estimated blood loss was 280 ml in LPD group and 337 ml in OPD group without statistically difference. Four of twelve patients (33.3%) in LPD group and eleven of twenty-four patients (45.8%) in OPD group received a transfusion. One patient in LPD group received additional operation of intraoperative choledochoscopy, while two patients in OPD group taken additional procedure of right colectomy and partial hepatectomy, respectively. No difference was found in the postoperative hospital stay. Eight patients (66.7%) in LPD group and 14 patients (58.3%) in OPD group experienced postoperative complications after surgery. This comparison showed no statistical differences in incidence of complications between the two groups. Two patients in OPD group examined as low extremity deep venous thrombosis by ultrasound. They were treated by antithrombotic prophylaxis of low-weight herapin, and elastic stocking. There have been 7 cases of pancreatic fistula (four from LPD group and three from OPD group), of which had been effectively monitored and heal conservatively by leaving the drainage in place on patient’s discharge, somatostatine, antibiotherapy, and longer hospital stay. One patient experienced re-laparoscopic surgery after LPD because of postoperative bleeding 2 hours after surgery. He was managed by relaparoscopy and hemostasis and recovered soon. Three patients in OPD group had postoperative bleeding. Amongst our LPD group and at 9 (range: 3~19) months follow-up, one patient had metastatic disease and local recurrence. The other patients entered an oncologic protocol of follow-up evaluation involving periodic physical, biochemical, and radiologic investigations. They were disease free at the latest evaluation.

Conclusion: LPD could be securely accomplished by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. More substantial sequence and extended follow-up intervals are required to set up the existing outcomes.


Session: Poster Presentation

Program Number: P329

59

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals