Evidence Hub

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumors: a randomized clinical trial

Yoo-Seok Yoon, Woohyung Lee, Chang Moo Kang, Taeho Hong, S. Shin, Jung-Woo Lee, DaeWook Hwang, Ki-Byung Song et al.

International Journal of Surgery, 2024

235 participants · 16 citations

Abstract

Background: There is a lack of robust evidence on the efficacy of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy compared to open surgery. This study was aimed to compare time to functional recovery (FR) between laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Materials and methods: This pragmatic, multicenter, randomized controlled phase 3 trial was conducted in seven tertiary centers. Patients with periampullary tumors were randomized using a block design in a 1:1 ratio and stratified by pancreatic fistula risk. Participants were randomized to undergo open or laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy by expert pancreatic surgeons. The primary outcome was the time to FR, defined as the number of days until FR was achieved in all five domains. The secondary endpoints included perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes. Results: Between March 2019 and June 2022, 252 patients were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n=125) or open groups (n=127). Primary outcomes were reported in 235 patients. The mean time to FR was shorter in laparoscopic group compared to the open group (7.7 vs. 9.0 days, P=0.03). Laparoscopic group exhibited a higher cumulative rate of FR compared to the open group (Hazard ratio,1.34; 95% CI, 1.03–1.74; P=0.02). Severe complications, R0 resection, the number of retrieved lymph nodes and short-term survival rates were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions: Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy demonstrated modest advantages in FR time over open surgery for selected…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 235 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free