Laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia repair in the elderly: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repair is common in the expanding aging population, but remains challenging due to their frequent comorbidities. The purpose of this study is to compare the surgical outcomes of open vs. laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in elderly patients. METHODS: Patients ≥ 65 years of age that underwent elective open or laparoscopic ventral hernia repair were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) database. To reduce potential selection bias, propensity scores were created for the likelihood of undergoing laparoscopic surgery based on patients' demographics and comorbidities. Patients were matched based on the logit of the propensity scores. Thirty-day surgical outcomes were compared after matching using Chi-square test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test for continuous variables. RESULTS: 35,079 (71.1%) and 14,270 (28.9%) patients underwent open and laparoscopic ventral hernia repairs, respectively. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a lower overall morbidity (5.9% vs. 9.1%; p < 0.001) compared to open repair. The incidence of surgical site infections (1.1% vs. 3.5%; p < 0.001), post-operative infections (2.7% vs. 3.6%; p < 0.001), and reoperation (1.7% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.009) were all lower after laparoscopic repair. All other major surgical outcomes were either better with laparoscopy or comparable between both treatment groups except for operative time. CONCLUSION: Although open surgery remains the most prevalent in the elderly population, the results of this study suggest that laparoscopic surgery is safe and associated with a lower risk of overall morbidity, surgical site infections, and reoperation.

Neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgical strategies in resectable pancreatic cancer: A Markov decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy is gaining acceptance as a valid treatment option for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer; however, its value for clearly resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. The aim of this study was to use a Markov decision analysis model, in the absence of adequately powered randomized trials, to compare the life expectancy (LE) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) of neoadjuvant therapy to conventional upfront surgical strategies in resectable pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS: A Markov decision model was created to compare two strategies: attempted pancreatic resection followed by adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by restaging with, if appropriate, attempted pancreatic resection. Data obtained through a comprehensive systematic search in PUBMED of the literature from 2000 to 2015 were used to estimate the probabilities used in the model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 786 potentially eligible studies identified, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria and were used to extract the probabilities used in the model. Base case analyses of the model showed a higher LE (32.2 vs. 26.7 months) and QALE (25.5 vs. 20.8 quality-adjusted life months) for patients in the neoadjuvant therapy arm compared to upfront surgery. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses for LE and QALE revealed that neoadjuvant therapy is favorable in 59% and 60% of the cases respectively. CONCLUSION(S): Although conceptual, these data suggest that neoadjuvant therapy offers substantial benefit in LE and QALE for resectable pancreatic cancer patients. These findings highlight the value of further prospective randomized trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy to conventional upfront surgical strategies.