Background This position statement was developed to expedite a consensus on definition and treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BRPC) that would have worldwide ...acceptability. Methods An international panel of pancreatic surgeons from well-established, high-volume centers collaborated on a literature review and development of consensus on issues related to borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Results The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) supports the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for the definition of BRPC. Current evidence supports operative exploration and resection in the case of involvement of the mesentericoportal venous axis; in addition, a new classification of extrahepatic mesentericoportal venous resections is proposed by the ISGPS. Suspicion of arterial involvement should lead to exploration to confirm the imaging-based findings. Formal arterial resections are not recommended; however, in exceptional circumstances, individual therapeutic approaches may be evaluated under experimental protocols. The ISGPS endorses the recommendations for specimen examination and the definition of an R1 resection (tumor within 1 mm from the margin) used by the British Royal College of Pathologists. Standard preoperative diagnostics for BRPC may include: (1) serum levels of CA19-9, because CA19-9 levels predict survival in large retrospective series; and also (2) the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio because of the prognostic relevance of the systemic inflammatory response. Various regimens of neoadjuvant therapy are recommended only in the setting of prospective trials at high-volume centers. Conclusion Current evidence justifies portomesenteric venous resection in patients with BRPC. Basic definitions were identified, that are currently lacking but that are needed to obtain further evidence and improvement for this important patient subgroup. A consensus for each topic is given.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Since the first reports with laparoscopic resection of islet cell tumors in 1996, the experience worldwide is still limited, with only short-term outcomes available. Some have suggested that a ...malignant tumor is a contraindication to laparoscopic resection.
Aim
The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and long-term outcome of the laparoscopic approach in patients with functioning, nonfunctioning, or overt malignant pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PNT). To our knowledge this is the largest single-institution series on this subject to date.
Patients and methods
A total of 49 consecutive patients (43 women, 6 men; mean age 58 years, range 22–83 years) underwent laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS) from April 1998 to June 2007. Preoperative localization was done by computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, endoscopic ultrasonography, and Octreoscan imaging. Other than 9 PNTs localized in the head of the pancreas, all tumors were located in the left pancreas. Malignancy was diagnosed based on the presence of lymph nodes or liver metastasis. There were 33 patients with functioning tumors: 4 with gastrinomas (mean size 1.2 cm), 1 with a glucagonoma (4 cm), 3 with vipomas (3.2 cm), 2 with carcinoids (5.2 cm), 20 with sporadic insulinomas (1.4 cm), 2 with insulinoma/multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN-1) (4.4 cm), and 1 with a malignant insulinoma (13 cm). Sixteen patients had a nonfunctioning tumor (mean size 5 cm). The following techniques were performed: laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (Lap SPDP), laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (Lap SxDP) and laparoscopic enucleation (Lap En)/laparoscopic excision (Lap E). Lymph node dissection was performed when malignancy was suspected (Strasberg´s technique). Evaluation criteria included operative and postoperative factors, pathologic data including R0 or R1 resection (the pancreatic transection margin and all transection margins on the specimen were inked). Long-term outcomes were analyzed by tumor recurrence and patient survival.
Results
Four cases (8.2%) were converted to open surgery. Overall, Lap SPDP, Lap SxDP, and Lap En/Lap E were performed in 15 (33.3%), 8 (17.8%), and 22 (48.9%) patients, respectively. The operative time and blood loss was significantly lower in the Lap En group compared with the other laparoscopic techniques. The group of patients with malignant tumors undergoing Lap SxDP had a longer operating time and greater blood loss compared with the other distal pancreatectomy (Lap DP) techniques. Overall, the postoperative complications were significantly higher in the Lap En group (42.8%) than in the Lap DP (Lap SPDP + Lap SxDP) group (22%). These complications were mainly pancreatic fistula: 8.7% after Lap DP and 38% after Lap En. The overall morbidity was significantly higher after Lap SPDP (26.7%) than after Lap SxDP (12.5%) owing to the occurrence of splenic complications in the Lap SPDP group without splenic vessel preservation two of seven (28.5%). The means and ranges of hospital stay after Lap SPDP, Lap SxDP, and Lap En/Lap E were 5.9 (5–14), 7.5 (5–12), and 5.5 (5–7) days, respectively (NS). Pathology examination of the specimen showed R0 resection in all patients with malignant PNT. The mean time to resumption of previous activities for patients undergoing Lap DP or Lap En was 3 weeks. There were no postoperative (30 days) or hospital deaths.
Conclusions
This series demonstrates that LPS is feasible and safe in benign-appearing and malignant neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors (NEPTs). The benefits of minimally invasive surgery were manifest in the short hospital stay and acceptable pancreas-related complications in high-risk patients. LPS can achieve negative tangential margins in a high percentage of patients with malignant tumors. Although surgical cure is rare in malignant NEPTs, significant long-term palliation can be achieved in a large proportion of patients with an aggressive surgical approach.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
To compare the results of postoperative morbidity rate of a new pancreatogastrostomy technique, pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) with gastric partition (PPPD-GP) with the ...conventional technique of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ).
Pancreatojejunostomy and pancreatogastrostomy (PG) are the commonly preferred methods of anastomosis after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). All randomized controlled trials failed to show advantage of a particular technique, suggesting that both PJ and PG provide equally results. However, postoperative morbidity remains high. The best technique in pancreatic anastomosis is still debated.
Described here is a new technique, PPPD-GP; in this technique the gastroepiploic arcade is preserved. Gastric partition was performed using 2 endo-Gia staplers along the greater curvature of the stomach, 3 cm from the border. This gastric segment, 10 to 12 cm in length is placed in close proximity to the cut edge of the pancreatic stump. An end-to-side, duct-to-mucosa anastomosis (with pancreatic duct stent) is constructed. One hundred eight patients undergoing PPPD for benign and malignant diseases of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region were randomized to receive PG (PPPD-GP) or end-to-side PJ (PPPD-PJ).
The two treatment groups showed no differences in preoperative parameters and intraoperative factors. The overall postoperative complications were 23% after PPPD-GP and 44% after PPPD-PJ (P < 0.01). The incidence of pancreatic fistula was 4% after PPPD-GP and 18% after PPPD-PJ (P < 0.01). The mean + SD hospital stay was 12 +/- 2 days after PPPD-GP and 16 +/- 3 days after PPPD-PJ.
This study shows that PPPD-GP can be performed safely and is associated with less complication than PPPD-PJ. The advantage of this technique over other PG techniques is that the anastomosis is outside the area of the stomach where the contents empty into the jejunum, but pancreatic juice drains directly into the stomach.
Background
Introduced more than 20 years ago, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LAPS) has not reached a uniform acceptance among HPB surgeons. As a result, there is no consensus regarding its use in ...patients with pancreatic neoplasms. This study, organized by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), aimed to develop consensus statements and clinical recommendations on the application of LAPS in these patients.
Methods
An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery. Each panelist performed a critical appraisal of the literature and prepared evidence-based statements assessed by other panelists during Delphi process. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting followed by the second round of Delphi. Modified statements were presented at the plenary session of the 24th International Congress of the EAES in Amsterdam and in a web-based survey.
Results
LAPS included laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), enucleation, central pancreatectomy, and ultrasound. In general, LAPS was found to be safe, especially in experienced hands, and also advantageous over an open approach in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, and quality of life. Eighty-five percent or higher proportion of responders agreed with the majority (69.5%) of statements. However, the evidence is predominantly based on retrospective case–control studies and systematic reviews of these studies, clearly affected by selection bias. Furthermore, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to date, although four RCTs are currently underway in Europe.
Conclusions
LAPS is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. LDP is feasible and safe, performed in many centers, while LPD is limited to few centers. RCTs and registry studies are essential to proceed with the assessment of LAPS.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OBVAL, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
Summary
Enteric complications remain a major cause of morbidity in the post‐transplant period of pancreas transplantation despite improvements surgical technique. The aim of this single‐center study ...was to analyze retrospectively the early intestinal complications and their potential relation with vascular events. From 2000 to 2016, 337 pancreas transplants were performed with systemic venous drainage. For exocrine secretion, intestinal drainage was done with hand‐sewn anastomosis duodenojejunostomy. Twenty‐three patients (6.8%) had early intestinal complications. Median age was 39 years (male: 65.2%). Median cold ischemia time was 11 h IQR: 9–12.4. Intestinal complications were intestinal obstruction (n = 7); paralytic ileus (n = 5); intestinal fistula without anastomotic dehiscence (n = 3); ischemic graft duodenum (n = 3); dehiscence of duodenojejunostomy (n = 4); and anastomotic dehiscence in jejunum after pancreas transplantectomy (n = 1). Eighteen cases required relaparotomy: adhesiolysis (n = 6); repeated laparotomy without findings (n = 1); transplantectomy (n = 6); primary leak closure (n = 3); re‐positioning of the graft (n = 1); and intestinal resection (n = 1). Of the intestinal complications, 4 were associated with vascular thrombosis, resulting in two pancreatic graft losses. Enteric drainage with duodenum–jejunum anastomosis is safe and feasible, with a low rate of intra‐abdominal complications. Vascular thrombosis associated with intestinal complications presents a risk factor for the viability of pancreatic grafts, so prevention and early detection is vital.
Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS) has seen significant development but much of the knowledge refers to small and benign pancreatic tumors. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and ...long-term outcome of the laparoscopic approach in patients with benign, premalignant, and overt malignant lesions of the pancreas. This study, currently, is the largest single center experience worldwide. One hundred twenty-three consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic pancreatic surgery from April 1998 to April 2007, 20 patients with cysts or pseudocysts for acute and chronic pancreatitis, laparoscopic pancreatic drainage was performed, and were excluded from the analysis. The 103 patients were divided based on preoperative diagnosis: group I, inflammatory tumors for chronic pancreatitis (eight patients); group II, cystic pancreatic neoplasms (29 patients); group III, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (10 patients); group IV, neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors (NETs) (43 patients); and group V ductal adenocarcinoma (13 patients). The median tumor size was 5.3 cm. Pathologic data include R(0) or R(1) resection (transection margins on the specimen were inked). Perioperative data, postoperative complications, and resection modalities were compared using statistical analysis. Long-term outcomes were analysed by tumor recurrence and patient survival. The overall conversion rate was 7%. Laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection was performed in 82 patients (79.6%). Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (Lap SPDP) was performed in 52 patients (63.7%), but with splenic vessels preservation in 22% and without splenic vessels preservation in 41.5%. Laparoscopic en-bloc splenopancreatectomy (Lap SxDP) was performed in 30 patients (36.6%) and laparoscopic enucleation (Lap En) in 20 patients (19.4%). There was no mortality. The overall complication rate was 25.2, 16.7, and 40% after Lap SPDP, Lap SxDP, and Lap En, respectively. The overall morbidity rate was significantly higher (p>0.05) in the group of Lap SPDP without splenic vessels preservation comparing with Lap SPDP with splenic vessels preservation because of the occurrence of splenic complications (20.6%). The overall pancreatic fistulas was 7.7, 10, and 35% after Lap SPDP, Lap SxDP, and Lap En, respectively; the severity of fistula was significantly higher in the Lap En group (p>0.05). The mean hospital stay was within 1 week in all groups, except in the group of ductal adenocarcinoma, which is 8 days. In this series, 27 patients (26.2%) had malignant disease. R(0) resection was achieved in 90% of ductal adenocarcinoma and 100% for other malignant tumors. The median survival for ductal adenocarcinoma patients was 14 months. This series demonstrates that LPS is feasible and safe in benign-appearing and malignant lesions of the pancreas.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FZAB, GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
OBJECTIVE:To provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) after pancreatic surgery.
BACKGROUND:EPI is a common complication after pancreatic ...surgery but there is certain confusion about its frequency, optimal methods of diagnosis, and when and how to treat these patients.
METHODS:Eighteen multidisciplinary reviewers performed a systematic review on 10 predefined questions following the GRADE methodology. Six external expert referees reviewed the retrieved information. Members from Spanish Association of Pancreatology were invited to suggest modifications and voted for the quantification of agreement.
RESULTS:These guidelines analyze the definition of EPI after pancreatic surgery, (one question), its frequency after specific techniques and underlying disease (four questions), its clinical consequences (one question), diagnosis (one question), when and how to treat postsurgical EPI (two questions) and its impact on the quality of life (one question). Eleven statements answering those 10 questions were providedone (9.1%) was rated as a strong recommendation according to GRADE, three (27.3%) as moderate and seven (63.6%) as weak. All statements had strong agreement.
CONCLUSIONS:EPI is a frequent but under-recognized complication of pancreatic surgery. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the definition, diagnosis, and management of EPI after pancreatic surgery.
OBJECTIVE To compare preservation with the division of the splenic vessels
in the surgical management of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal
pancreatectomy. DESIGN Bicentric retrospective study. ...SETTING Prospectively maintained databases. PATIENTS Between January 1997 and January 2011, 140 patients who underwent
laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy for benign or
low-grade malignant tumors in the body/tail of the pancreas were included.
Patients treated with the attempted splenic vessel preservation were
compared with patients treated with the attempted division of the
splenic vessels (Warshaw technique). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Operative outcomes and postoperative morbidity were evaluated. RESULTS The outcomes of 55 patients in the splenic vessel preservation
group were compared with those of 85 patients in the Warshaw technique
group. The clinical characteristics were similar in both groups, except
for tumor size, which was significantly greater in the Warshaw technique
group (33.6 vs 42.5 mm; P < .001).
The mean operative time, mean blood loss, and rate of conversion to
the open procedure did not differ between the 2 groups. The rate of
successful spleen preservation was significantly improved following
the splenic vessel preservation technique (96.4% vs 84.7%; P = .03). Complications related to the
spleen only occurred in the Warshaw technique group (0% vs 10.5%; P = .03), requiring a splenectomy in
4 patients (4.7%). The mean length of stay was shorter in the splenic
vessel preservation group (8.2 vs 10.5 days; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS The short-term benefits associated with the preservation of
the splenic vessels should lead to an increased preference for this
technique in selected patients undergoing laparoscopic spleen-preserving
distal pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant tumors in
the body/tail of the pancreas.
The First World Consensus Conference on Pancreas Transplantation provided 49 jury deliberations regarding the impact of pancreas transplantation on the treatment of diabetic patients, and 110 ...experts’ recommendations for the practice of pancreas transplantation. The main message from this consensus conference is that both simultaneous pancreas‐kidney transplantation (SPK) and pancreas transplantation alone can improve long‐term patient survival, and all types of pancreas transplantation dramatically improve the quality of life of recipients. Pancreas transplantation may also improve the course of chronic complications of diabetes, depending on their severity. Therefore, the advantages of pancreas transplantation appear to clearly surpass potential disadvantages. Pancreas after kidney transplantation increases the risk of mortality only in the early period after transplantation, but is associated with improved life expectancy thereafter. Additionally, preemptive SPK, when compared to SPK performed in patients undergoing dialysis, appears to be associated with improved outcomes. Time on dialysis has negative prognostic implications in SPK recipients. Increased long‐term survival, improvement in the course of diabetic complications, and amelioration of quality of life justify preferential allocation of kidney grafts to SPK recipients. Audience discussions and live voting are available online at the following URL address: http://mediaeventi.unipi.it/category/1st‐world‐consensus‐conference‐of‐pancreas‐transplantation/246.
This article described how pancreas transplantation impacts on life expectancy, quality of life, and course of diabetic complications based on the jury deliberations and expert recommendations from the First World Consensus
Conference on Pancreas Transplantation.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Abstract Background Over the last decade laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS) has emerged as an alternative to open pancreatic surgery (OPS) in selected patients with neuroendocrine tumours (NET) of ...the pancreas (PNET). Evidence on the safety and efficacy of LPS is available from non-comparative studies. Objectives This study was designed as a meta-analysis of studies which allow a comparison of LPS and OPS for resection of PNET. Methods Studies conducted from 1994 to 2012 and reporting on LPS and OPS were reviewed. Studies considered were required to report on outcomes in more than 10 patients on at least one of the following: operative time; hospital length of stay (LoS); intraoperative blood loss; postoperative morbidity; pancreatic fistula rates, and mortality. Outcomes were compared using weighted mean differences and odds ratios. Results Eleven studies were included. These referred to 906 patients with PNET, of whom 22% underwent LPS and 78% underwent OPS. Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery was associated with a lower overall complication rate (38% in LPS versus 46% in OPS; P < 0.001). Blood loss and LoS were lower in LPS by 67 ml ( P < 0.001) and 5 days ( P < 0.001), respectively. There were no differences in rates of pancreatic fistula, operative time or mortality. Conclusions The nature of this meta-analysis is limited; nevertheless LPS for PNET appears to be safe and is associated with a reduced complication rate and shorter LoS than OPS.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
PDF
