Showing posts with label Pancreas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pancreas. Show all posts

Pancreas‐sparing, ampulla‐preserving duodenectomy for major duodenal (D1–D2) perforations.

Background

Ideal surgical treatment for acute duodenal injuries should offer a definitive treatment, with low morbidity and mortality. It should be simple and easily reproducible by acute care surgeons in an emergency. Duodenal injury, due to major perforated or bleeding peptic ulcers or iatrogenic/traumatic perforation, represents a surgical challenge, with high morbidity and mortality. The aim was to review definitive surgery with pancreas‐sparing, ampulla‐preserving duodenectomy for these patients.

Method

Pancreas‐sparing, ampulla‐preserving D1–D2 duodenectomy was used for patients presenting with major duodenal injuries over a 5‐year interval. The ampulla was identified and preserved using a transcystic/transpapillary tube. The outcomes were recorded.

Results

Ten patients were treated with this technique; seven had perforated or bleeding peptic ulcers, two had iatrogenic perforations and one blunt abdominal trauma. Their mean age was 78 (range 65–84) years. Four patients were haemodynamically unstable. The location of the duodenal injury was always D1 and/or D2, above or in close proximity to the ampulla of Vater. The surgical approach was open in nine patients and laparoscopic in one. The mean duration of surgery was 264 (range 170–377) min. All patients were transferred to the ICU after surgery (mean ICU stay 4·4 (range 1–11) days), and the overall mean hospital stay was 17·8 (range 10–32) days. Six patients developed major postoperative complications: cardiorespiratory failure in five and gastrointestinal complications in four. Surgical reoperation was needed in one patient for postoperative necrotizing and bleeding pancreatitis. Two patients died from their complications.

Conclusion

Pancreas‐sparing, ampulla‐preserving D1–D2 duodenectomy for emergency treatment of major duodenal perforations is feasible and associated with satisfactory outcomes.


BJS 2018; 105: 1487-1492.

Published: 19th July 2018
Authors: S. Di Saverio, E. Segalini, A. Birindelli, S. Todero, M. Podda, A. Rizzuto et al.

Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma

Background
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours is either a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of the procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, mortality, complications and quality of life.
Objectives
The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of each operation.
Search methods
We conducted searches on 28 March 2006 and 11 January 2011 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CDSR and DARE from The Cochrane Library (2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2011), and EMBASE (1980 to January 2011). Abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and U nited European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010). No additional studies were indentified upon updating the systematic review in 2011.
Selection criteria
We considered RCTs comparing the CW with PPW to be eligible if they included patients with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma.
Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (OR), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MD) and used hazard ratios (HR) for meta-analysis of survival. Two authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies according to Cochrane standards.
Main results
We included six randomised controlled trials with a total of 465 patients. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. In-hospital mortality (OR 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.40; P = 0.18), overall survival (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P = 0.29) and morbidity showed no significant differences. However, we noted that operating time (MD -68.26 minutes; 95% CI -105.70 to -30.83; P = 0.0004) and intra-operative blood loss (MD -0.76 millilitres; 95% CI -0.96 to -0.56; P < 0.00001) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results have low quality of evidence based on GRADE criteria.
Authors' conclusions
There is no evidence of relevant differences in mortality, morbidity and survival between the two operations. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future research must be undertaken to perform high-quality randomised controlled trials of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well-defined outcome parameters.

Published Online: 11 MAY 2011
Assessed as up-to-date: 21 FEB 2011
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub4