The Impact on Survival and Morbidity of Portal-Mesenteric Resection During Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Head Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

Background: The literature is conflicting regarding oncological outcome and morbidity associated to portal–mesenteric resection during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma (PHAC). Methods: A meta-analysis of studies comparing PD plus venous resection (PD+VR) and standard PD exclusively in patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head was conducted. Results: Twenty-three cohort studies were identified, which included 6037 patients, of which 28.6% underwent PD+VR and 71.4% underwent standard PD. Patients who received PD+VR had lower 1-year overall survival (OS) (odds radio OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67–0.92, p = 0.003), 3-year OS (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59–0.87, p = 0.0006), and 5-year OS (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39–0.83, p = 0.003). Patients in the PD+VR group were more likely to have a larger tumor size (MD 3.87, 95% CI 1.75 to 5.99, p = 0.0003), positive lymph nodes (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.06–1.45, p = 0.007), and R1 resection (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.37–2.20, p < 0.0001). Thirty-day mortality was higher in the PD+VR group (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.28–2.91, p = 0.002), while no differences between groups were observed in rates of total complications (OR 1.07, 95% CI, 0.81–1.41, p = 0.65). Conclusions: Although PD+VR has significantly increased the resection rate in patients with PHAC, it has inferior survival outcomes and higher 30-day mortality when compared with standard PD, whereas postoperative morbidity rates are similar. Further research is needed to evaluate the role of PD+VR in the context of multimodality treatment of PHAC.

Pancreatectomy combined with multivisceral resection for pancreatic malignancies: is it justified? Results of a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Multivisceral resections combined with pancreatectomy have been proposed in selected patients with tumor invasion into adjacent organs, in order to allow complete tumor resection. Some authors have also reported multivisceral resection combined with metastasectomy in very selected cases. The utility of this practice is debated. The aim of the review is to compare the postoperative results and survival of pancreatectomies combined with multivisceral resections with those of standard pancreatectomies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify all studies published up to February 2017 that analyzed data of patients undergoing multivisceral and standard pancreatectomies. Clinical effectiveness was synthetized through a narrative review with full tabulation of results.

RESULTS

Three studies were retrieved, including 713 (80%) patients undergoing standard pancreatectomies and 176 (20%) undergoing multivisceral resections (MVR). Postoperative morbidity ranged from 37% to 50% after standard resections and from 56% to 69% after MVR. In-hospital mortality ranged from 4% after standard pancreatectomies to 10% after MVR. Median survival ranged from 20 to 23 months in standard resections and from 12 to 20 months after MVR, without significant differences.

DISCUSSION

The current literature suggests that multivisceral pancreatectomies are feasible and may increase the number of completely resected patients. Morbidity and mortality are higher than after standard pancreatectomies, and these procedures should be reserved to selected patients in referral centers. Further studies on the role of neoadjuvant therapy in this setting are advisable.

Laparoscopic Conversion of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass to a Standard Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

INTRODUCTION

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) demonstrated results similar to traditional Roux-en-Y procedures [1-3], in terms of weight loss and resolution of obesity-related comorbidities. The main controversy regarding OAGB is the concern for an association between biliary alkaline gastritis and esophageal or gastric cancer raised by some studies [4].

METHODS

We present the case of a 51-year-old woman with a BMI of 41 kg/m2 who underwent a laparoscopic OAGB in 2014. One year later, she consulted for recurrent heartburns. An upper GI endoscopy showed pouchitis and bile reflux in the esophagus. Medical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease was ineffective. We decided to convert the OAGB to a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

RESULTS

In this video, we show how to revise an OAGB to treat chronic bile reflux, by converting the procedure to a standard RYGB. The intervention starts by restoring the normal anatomy of the small bowel, with the resection of the gastrojejunal anastomosis, which was located at 250-cm du Treitz's ligament. Then, the gastric pouch is created. A standard Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is performed.

CONCLUSIONS

The resection of the gastrojejunal anastomosis allows fashioning the Roux-en-Y limb with the classical measures. This technique allows a conversion to a standard RYGB and is effective in treating the biliary reflux.

Esophagectomy with Esophagocoloplasty for Malignancies: Indications, Technique (with Video), and Results. Systematic Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Esophagocoloplasty represents a useful technique to restore the intestinal continuity after esophagogastrectomy. This technique has been used mainly after esophagogastric caustic injuries. The aim of this review is to assess the role of esophagogastrectomy with esophagocoloplasty for esophageal or gastric neoplasms.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and PubMed databases to identify all studies published in the previous 25 years (1991-2016) reporting cases of esophagocoloplasty after esophagogastrectomy for malignancies. The systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

The systematic review of the literature shows a morbidity rate of 57% and a mortality rate of 15% in the 93 reported cases of esophagocoloplasty performed for malignant diseases. However, R0 rate ranged from 76.1 to 85%, and 5-year survival was obtained in 11.9-32.8% of patients in the different series.

CONCLUSIONS

In highly selected cases of primary or relapsing gastric or esophageal neoplasms, esophagogastrectomy with esophagocoloplasty is a viable and useful option, which may guarantee complete tumor resection and long-term survival.

Follow-up after curative resection for gastric cancer: Is it time to tailor it?

There is still no consensus on the follow-up frequency and regimen after curative resection for gastric cancer. Moreover, controversy exists regarding the utility of follow-up in improving survival, and the recommendations of experts and societies vary considerably. The main reason to establish surveillance programs is to diagnose tumor recurrence or metachronous cancers early and to thereby provide prompt treatment and prolong survival. In the setting of gastric malignancies, other reasons have been put forth: (1) the detection of adverse effects of a previous surgery, such as malnutrition or digestive sequelae; (2) the collection of data; and (3) the identification of psychological and/or social problems and provision of appropriate support to the patients. No randomized controlled trials on the role of follow-up after curative resection of gastric carcinoma have been published. Herein, the primary retrospective series and systematic reviews on this subject are analyzed and discussed. Furthermore, the guidelines from international and national scientific societies are discussed. Follow-up is recommended by the majority of institutions; however, there is no real evidence that follow-up can improve long-term survival rates. Several studies have demonstrated that it is possible to stratify patients submitted to curative gastrectomy into different classes according to the risk of recurrence. Furthermore, promising studies have identified several molecular markers that are related to the risk of relapse and to prognosis. Based on these premises, a promising strategy will be to tailor follow-up in relation to the patient and tumor characteristics, molecular marker status, and individual risk of recurrence.

Frozen section analysis of the pancreatic margin during pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: Does extending the resection to obtain a secondary R0 provide a survival benefit? Results of a systematic review

BACKGROUND

During pancreaticoduodenectomy, frozen section pancreatic margin analysis permits to extend the resection in case of a positive margin, to achieve R0 margin. We aim to assess if patients having an R0 margin following the extension of the pancreatectomy after a positive frozen section (secondary R0) have different survival compared to those with R1 resection or primary R0 resection.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed to identify all studies published up to March 2016 analyzing the survival of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy according to the results of frozen section pancreatic margin examination. Clinical effectiveness was synthetized through a narrative review with full tabulation of results.

RESULTS

Four studies published between 2010 and 2014 were retrieved, including 2580 patients. A primary R0 resection was obtained in a percentage of patients ranging from 36.2% to 85.5%, whereas secondary R0 in 9.4%-57.8% of cases and R1 in 5.1%-9.2%. Median survival ranged from 19 to 29 months in R0 patients, from 11.9 to 18 months in secondary R0, and from 12 to 23 months in R1 patients. None of the study demonstrated a survival benefit of extending the resection to obtain a secondary R0 pancreatic margin.

CONCLUSIONS

All the studies were concordant, and failed to demonstrate the survival benefit of additional pancreatic resection to obtain a secondary R0. However, inadequate surgery should not be advocated. This review suggests that re-resection of the pancreatic margin may have limited impact on patients' survival.

Pulmonary metastases from gastric cancer: Is there any indication for lung metastasectomy? A systematic review

It is still not clear whether pulmonary resection may have a role in the multidisciplinary management of gastric cancer lung metastases. A systematic literature search was performed to identify all studies published between January 1998 and December 2014 about pulmonary resection of gastric cancer metastases. Ten studies published between 1998 and 2013 were retrieved, including a total of 44 patients. After gastrectomy, median disease-free interval was 35 months. Thirty-eight patients had single lung metastases, whereas six presented with more than one lesion. Median overall survival after lung resection was 45 months, and median disease-free survival was 9 months. Our analysis of the recent literature shows that lung metastasectomy for gastric cancer pulmonary metastases has been reported only in the setting of anecdotic cases or small series of highly selected patients. Lung metastasectomy has no role in the standard management of metastatic gastric patients and may actually be proposed only in individual highly selected cases.

Robotic right colectomy: A worthwhile procedure? Results of a meta-analysis of trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy

BACKGROUND:

Robotic right colectomy (RRC) is a complex procedure, offered to selected patients at institutions highly experienced with the procedure. It is still not clear if this approach is worthwhile in enhancing patient recovery and reducing post-operative complications, compared with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). Literature is still fragmented and no meta-analyses have been conducted to compare the two procedures. This work aims at reducing this gap in literature, in order to draw some preliminary conclusions on the differences and similarities between RRC and LRC, focusing on short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies comparing RRC and LRC, and meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Peri-operative outcomes (e.g., morbidity, mortality, anastomotic leakage rates, blood loss, operative time) constituted the study end points.

RESULTS:

Six studies, including 168 patients undergoing RRC and 348 patients undergoing LRC were considered as suitable. The patients in the two groups were similar with respect to sex, body mass index, presence of malignant disease, previous abdominal surgery, and different with respect to age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. There were no statistically significant differences between RRC and LRC regarding estimated blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, number of retrieved lymph nodes, development of anastomotic leakage and other complications, overall morbidity, rates of reoperation, overall mortality, hospital stays. RRC resulted in significantly longer operative time.

CONCLUSIONS:

The RRC procedure is feasible, safe, and effective in selected patients. However, operative times are longer comparing to LRC and no advantages in peri-operative and post-operative outcomes are demonstrated with the use of the robotic surgical system.