Therapeutic, prophylactic, and preresection applications of laparoscopic gastric and biliary bypass for patients with periampullary malignancy

Double Stenting for Malignant Biliary and Duodenal Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Data about the efficacy of palliative double stenting for malignant duodenal and biliary obstruction are limited.

Laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy for gastric outlet obstruction in patients with unresectable hepatopancreatobiliary cancers: A personal series and systematic review of the literature

The major symptoms of advanced hepatopancreatic-biliary cancer are biliary obstruction, pain and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). For obstructive jaundice, surgical treatment should de consider in recurrent stent complications. The role of surgery for pain relief is marginal nowadays. On the last, there is no consensus for treatment of malignant GOO. Endoscopic duodenal stents are associated with shorter length of stay and faster relief to oral intake with more recurrent symptoms. Surgical gastrojejunostomy shows better long-term results and lower re-intervention rates, but there are limited data about laparoscopic approach. We performed a systematic review of the literature, according PRISMA guidelines, to search for articles on laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy for malignant GOO treatment. We also report our personal series, from 2009 to 2017. A review of the literature suggests that there is no standardized surgical technique either standardized outcomes to report. Most of the studies are case series, so level of evidence is low. Decision-making must consider medical condition, nutritional status, quality of life and life expectancy. Evaluation of the patient and multidisciplinary expertise are required to select appropriate approach. Given the limited studies and the difficulty to perform prospective controlled trials, no study can answer all the complexities of malignant GOO and more outcome data is needed.

Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in patients suspected of having common bile duct stones prior to undergoing invasive treatment. There has been no systematic review of the accuracy of EUS and MRCP in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones using appropriate reference standards.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov until September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and of systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for EUS or MRCP. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct or symptom free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test, as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors independently screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected the data from each study. We used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 18 studies involving 2366 participants (976 participants with common bile duct stones and 1390 participants without common bile duct stones). Eleven studies evaluated EUS alone, and five studies evaluated MRCP alone. Two studies evaluated both tests. Most studies included patients who were suspected of having common bile duct stones based on abnormal liver function tests; abnormal transabdominal ultrasound; symptoms such as obstructive jaundice, cholangitis, or pancreatitis; or a combination of the above. The proportion of participants who had undergone cholecystectomy varied across studies. Not one of the studies was of high methodological quality. For EUS, the sensitivities ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.85 and 1.00. The summary sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) and specificity (95% CI) of the 13 studies that evaluated EUS (1537 participants; 686 cases and 851 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.99). For MRCP, the sensitivities ranged between 0.77 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.73 and 0.99. The summary sensitivity and specificity of the seven studies that evaluated MRCP (996 participants; 361 cases and 635 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.96) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98). There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity or specificity between EUS and MRCP (P value = 0.5). From the included studies, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 41% the post-test probabilities (with 95% CI) associated with positive and negative EUS test results were 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). At the same pre-test probability, the post-test probabilities associated with positive and negative MRCP test results were 0.94 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.97) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both EUS and MRCP have high diagnostic accuracy for detection of common bile duct stones. People with positive EUS or MRCP should undergo endoscopic or surgical extraction of common bile duct stones and those with negative EUS or MRCP do not need further invasive tests. However, if the symptoms persist, further investigations will be indicated. The two tests are similar in terms of diagnostic accuracy and the choice of which test to use will be informed by availability and contra-indications to each test. However, it should be noted that the results are based on studies of poor methodological quality and so the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies that are of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

Ultrasound versus liver function tests for diagnosis of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound and liver function tests (serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase) are used as screening tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracy of ultrasound versus liver function tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov to September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment, Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for ultrasound, serum bilirubin, or serum alkaline phosphatase. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test result, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct, or symptom-free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test result as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected data from each study. Where meta-analysis was possible, we used the bivariate model to summarise sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies including 523 participants reported the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound. One studies (262 participants) compared the accuracy of ultrasound, serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase in the same participants. All the studies included people with symptoms. One study included only participants without previous cholecystectomy but this information was not available from the remaining studies. All the studies were of poor methodological quality. The sensitivities for ultrasound ranged from 0.32 to 1.00, and the specificities ranged from 0.77 to 0.97. The summary sensitivity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.90) and the specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.95). At the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.408, the post-test probability (95% CI) associated with positive ultrasound tests was 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.91), and negative ultrasound tests was 0.17 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.33).The single study of liver function tests reported diagnostic accuracy at two cut-offs for bilirubin (greater than 22.23 μmol/L and greater than twice the normal limit) and two cut-offs for alkaline phosphatase (greater than 125 IU/L and greater than twice the normal limit). This study also assessed ultrasound and reported higher sensitivities for bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase at both cut-offs but the specificities of the markers were higher at only the greater than twice the normal limit cut-off. The sensitivity for ultrasound was 0.32 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.54), bilirubin (cut-off greater than 22.23 μmol/L) was 0.84 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.95), and alkaline phosphatase (cut-off greater than 125 IU/L) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.99). The specificity for ultrasound was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97), bilirubin (cut-off greater than 22.23 μmol/L) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.94), and alkaline phosphatase (cut-off greater than 125 IU/L) was 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.84). No study reported the diagnostic accuracy of a combination of bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase, or combinations with ultrasound.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many people may have common bile duct stones in spite of having a negative ultrasound or liver function test. Such people may have to be re-tested with other modalities if the clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones is very high because of their symptoms. False-positive results are also possible and further non-invasive testing is recommended to confirm common bile duct stones to avoid the risks of invasive testing.It should be noted that these results were based on few studies of poor methodological quality and the results for ultrasound varied considerably between studies. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus intraoperative cholangiography for diagnosis of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and IOC.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracy of ERCP and IOC for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov to September 2012. To identify additional studies, we searched the references of included studies and systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for ERCP or IOC. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct, or symptom-free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones; with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected data from each study. We used the bivariate model to summarise the sensitivity and specificity of the tests.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five studies including 318 participants (180 participants with and 138 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and five studies including 654 participants (125 participants with and 529 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of IOC. Most studies included people with symptoms (participants with jaundice or pancreatitis) suspected of having common bile duct stones based on blood tests, ultrasound, or both, prior to the performance of ERCP or IOC. Most studies included participants who had not previously undergone removal of the gallbladder (cholecystectomy). None of the included studies was of high methodological quality as evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool (quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies). The sensitivities of ERCP ranged between 0.67 and 0.94 and the specificities ranged between 0.92 and 1.00. For ERCP, the summary sensitivity was 0.83 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.90) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00). The sensitivities of IOC ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.96 and 1.00. For IOC, the summary sensitivity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00). For ERCP, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35 estimated from the included studies (i.e., 35% of people suspected of having common bile duct stones were confirmed to have gallstones by the reference standard), the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) and negative test results was 0.09 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.14). For IOC, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35, the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.98 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.00) and negative test results was 0.01 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.10). There was weak evidence of a difference in sensitivity (P value = 0.05) with IOC showing higher sensitivity than ERCP. There was no evidence of a difference in specificity (P value = 0.7) with both tests having similar specificity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although the sensitivity of IOC appeared to be better than that of ERCP, this finding may be unreliable because none of the studies compared both tests in the same study populations and most of the studies were methodologically flawed. It appears that both tests were fairly accurate in guiding further invasive treatment as most people diagnosed with common bile duct stones by these tests had common bile duct stones. Some people may have common bile duct stones in spite of having a negative ERCP or IOC result. Such people may have to be re-tested if the clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones is very high because of their symptoms or persistently abnormal liver function tests. However, the results should be interpreted with caution given the limited quantity and quality of the evidence.

Double bypass for inoperable pancreatic malignancy at laparotomy: postoperative complications and long-term outcome

INTRODUCTION

Between 4% and 13% of patients with operable pancreatic malignancy are found unresectable at the time of surgery. Double bypass is a good option for fit patients but it is associated with a high risk of postoperative complications. The aim of this study was to identify pre-operatively which patients undergoing double bypass are at high risk of complications and to assess their long-term outcome.

METHODS

Of the 576 patients undergoing pancreatic resections between 2006 and 2011, 50 patients who underwent a laparotomy for a planned pancreaticoduodenectomy had a double bypass procedure for inoperable disease. Demographic data, risk factors for postoperative complications and pre-operative anaesthetic assessment data including the Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM) and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) were collected.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (33 men and 17 women) were included in the study. The median patient age was 64 years (range: 39-79 years). The complication rate was 50% and the in-hospital mortality rate was 4%. The P-POSSUM physiology subscore and low anaerobic threshold at CPET were significantly associated with postoperative complications (p =0.005 and p =0.016 respectively) but they were unable to predict them. Overall long-term survival was significantly shorter in patients with postoperative complications (9 vs 18 months). Postoperative complications were independently associated with poorer long-term survival (p =0.003, odds ratio: 3.261).

CONCLUSIONS

P-POSSUM and CPET are associated with postoperative complications but the possibility of using them for risk prediction requires further research. However, postoperative complications following double bypass have a significant impact on long-term survival and this type of surgery should therefore only be performed in specialised centres.

Role of the laparoscopic approach to biliary bypass for benign and malignant biliary diseases: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach for biliary bypass surgery is a contemporary management option. This article reviews the evidence available for its role and effectiveness.

METHODS

A computerised search was made of the MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases for English language publications from the first report of laparoscopic biliary bypass in 1992 to January 2010.

RESULTS

Some 89 patients featured in 19 reports underwent 89 laparoscopic biliary bypass procedures for benign (n=17) and malignant (n=72) indications. Of those, 52 patients underwent biliary bypass alone, while 37 patients underwent biliary bypass combined with gastric bypass. The procedures included cholecystojejunostomy (n=64), hepaticojejunostomy (n=14), and choledochoduodenostomy (n=11). The overall success rate in achieving resolution of jaundice was 98.9%, with a morbidity rate of 12.3% and a mortality rate of 5.6%. More than one procedure was required in 1.1% of patients to achieve resolution of obstructive jaundice. During a reported median follow-up period of 13 months, obstructive jaundice recurred in none of the patients.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach to biliary bypass surgery is safe and has a high initial success rate, low reintervention rate, and low morbidity and mortality rates. Longer follow-up data and comparative studies with open surgery and endoscopic stenting are needed.

Drainage and bypass procedures for palliation of malignant diseases of the upper gastrointestinal tract

Malignant diseases of the upper gastrointestinal tract are common and often diagnosed at a point when the opportunity for curative surgical resection has passed. Symptoms of luminal obstruction include nausea, vomiting, weight loss, pain, pruritus and jaundice. The median survival of patients who cannot be cured surgically is extremely short, with a duration of only a few months. Effective palliative techniques with a low morbidity and associated mortality are required. The length of hospital stay, rapid recovery and reduction in recurrent symptoms are important factors for patients and doctors to consider when planning treatment. Traditionally, surgical techniques were used, but in the last 20 years the availability of both endoscopic and interventional radiological procedures has increased. Furthermore, advances in technology such as the development of self-expanding metal stents and covered stent designs have provided more therapeutic options for the endoscopist and radiologist. Here we discuss the available treatments for the palliation of gastric outlet and biliary tract obstruction and the evidence for the respective approaches.

Should all distal pancreatectomies be performed laparoscopically?

Despite the relatively slow start of laparoscopic pancreatectomy relative to other laparoscopic resections, an increasing number of these procedures are being performed around the world. Operations that were once considered impossible to perform laparoscopically, such as pancreaticoduodenectomy and central pancreatectomy are gaining momentum. Technology continues to improve, as does surgical experience and prowess. There are both enough experience and data (though retrospective) to confirm that LDP with or without spleen preservation appears to be a safe treatment for benign or noninvasive lesions of the pancreas. Based on the fact that LDP can be performed with similar or shorter operative times, blood loss, complication rates, and length of hospital stay than ODP, it can be recommended as the treatment of choice for benign and noninvasive lesions in experienced hands when clinically indicated. It is very difficult to make clear recommendations with regard to laparoscopic resection of malignant pancreatic tumors due to the lack of conclusive data. As long as margins are negative and lymph node clearance is within accepted standards, LDP appears to have no untoward oncologic effects on outcome. Certainly more data, preferably in the manner of a randomized clinical trial, are needed before additional recommendations can be made. Potential benefits of laparoscopic resection for cancer include the ability to inspect the abdomen and abort the procedure with minimal damage if occult metastases are identified. This does not delay the onset of palliative chemotherapy, which would be the primary treatment in that circumstance. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that there is a greater likelihood of receiving systemic therapy if a laparotomy is avoided in patients who have radiologically occult metastases. Patients may also undergo palliative laparoscopic gastric and biliary bypass if indicated. Faster wound healing may also translate into a shorter waiting time before initiating adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. If the patient develops a wound infection, the infection should be more readily manageable with smaller incisions. Although not proven clinically relevant in humans, the reduction in perioperative stress associated with laparoscopic resection may translate to a cancer benefit for some patients. One report compared markers of systemic inflammatory response in 15 subjects undergoing left pancreatectomy. Eight had hand-access laparoscopic procedures and the rest had standard open surgery. The subjects in the laparoscopic group had statistically lower C-reactive protein levels than the open group on postoperative days one (5.5 mg/dL versus 9.7 mg/dL, P = .006) and three (8.5 mg/dL versus 17.7 mg/dL, P = .003), suggesting that the laparoscopic approach to left pancreatectomy is associated with less inflammation. While this report is underpowered, it supports the notion that MIS cancer surgery may induce less of a systemic insult to the body than standard open cancer surgery. More work in this area is necessary before any firm conclusions can be drawn. An important issue to consider is that of training surgeons to perform these complex procedures laparoscopically. Not all pancreatectomies are amenable to the laparoscopic approach, even in the most skilled hands. As such, only a percentage of cases will be performed this way and expectations to educate surgeons adequately to perform advanced laparoscopic procedures can be unrealistic, resulting in more "on-the-job" training. Another aspect that draws some controversy is that of the totally laparoscopic procedure versus the hand-access approach. No laparoscopic instrument provides the tactile feedback possible to obtain with the hand. The HALS approach allows for this, and the opportunity to control bleeding during the procedure. HALS also provides a way to improve confidence during the learning-curve phase of these operations. Finally, it is important to remember that if the procedure is failing to progress laparoscopically, or if cancer surgery principles are likely to be violated, the surgeon (and the patient) must be willing to abort the laparoscopic approach and complete the operation using standard open technique. During the next few years we can expect to see more robust outcome data with laparoscopic pancreatectomy. The expectation is that more data will come to light demonstrating benefits of laparoscopic pancreatic resection as compared with open technique for selected patients. Several groups are considering randomized trials to look at these endpoints. Although more retrospective and prospectively maintained data will certainly be presented, it is less likely that randomized data specifically examining the question oflaparoscopic versus open pancreatectomy for cancer will mature, due to some of the limitations discussed above. Additional areas of discovery are in staple line reinforcement for left pancreatectomy and suturing technology for pancreatico-intestinal anastomosis. Robotic surgery may have a role in pancreatic surgery. Improving optics and visualization with flexible endoscopes with provide novel surgical views potentially improving the safety of laparoscopy. Another area in laparoscopic surgery that is gaining momentum is that of Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES). NOTES represents the "holy grail" of incisionless surgery. Can we enucleate a small tumor off the pancreatic body by passing an endoscope through the gastric (or colonic) wall, and bring the specimen out via the mouth or anus? Can we use this approach for formal left pancreatectomies? Pioneers have already developed a porcine model of left pancreatectomy. This technology must clear several hurdles before it is cancer ready; however, technology is moving at a rapid pace.

Gallbladder abnormalities in carcinoma of pancreatic head: findings on MR imaging

BACKGROUND

Our objective is to study the gallbladder abnormalities on MR images associated with carcinoma of the pancreatic head.

METHODS

Thirty-six patients who had surgical resection of pancreatic head carcinoma were retrospectively analyzed regarding the appearance of the tumor and gallbladder on MR imaging performed within one month before surgery. The changes of the gallbladder wall, and the dimension of the gallbladder, cystic duct, pericholecystic region, and common bile duct (CBD) on MR imaging were noted.

RESULTS

About 92% (33/36) of patients had at least one gallbladder abnormality on MR imaging, including thickened gallbladder wall (58%), gallbladder wall striation (19%), gallbladder wall severe enhancement (44%), enlarged gallbladder (33%), gallbladder stone (19%), dilatation of cystic duct (67%), focally increased liver parenchymal enhancement adjacent to the gallbladder (19%), and pericholecystic fluid (11%). 64% of patients had dilated CBD. The diameter of the cystic duct was correlated with those of the CBD (r = 0.45, P < 0.01) and gallbladder (r = 0.56, P < 0.0001). Enlarged gallbladder, dilatation of the cystic duct, and CBD were correlated with chronic cholecystitis.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with pancreatic head carcinoma show gallbladder abnormalities on MR imaging. Cystic duct dilatation follows CBD dilatation and is the primary cause for dilated gallbladder and chronic cholecystitis in carcinoma of pancreatic head.

Combined biliary and gastric bypass procedures as effective palliation for unresectable malignant disease

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic treatment of jaundice is increasingly used in the palliation of unresectable malignant disease, surgical bypass still has a role to play in this setting. This study aimed to reappraise the short-term and long-term results of combined biliary/gastric bypass (hepaticojejunostomy and gastrojejunostomy) as palliation for unresectable malignant disease.

METHODS

All patients undergoing simultaneous biliary and gastric bypass procedures for unresectable malignant disease between August 2000 and January 2006 were identified and outcomes reviewed.

RESULTS

One hundred and two patients underwent open surgical biliary drainage procedures for palliation of malignant disease. Underlying malignant disease included pancreatic carcinoma (n = 88), duodenal adenocarcinoma (n = 6) and distal cholangiocarcinoma (n = 3). Thirty-one of the patients underwent a planned palliative bypass procedure, the remainder being carried out after unresectable disease was identified at laparotomy. Postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were higher in the group undergoing planned bypass. During follow up, two patients developed recurrent jaundice that required transhepatic stenting and two patients developed late gastric outlet obstruction requiring refashioning of the gastrojejunostomy.

CONCLUSION

Combined surgical biliary and gastric bypass achieved effective palliation of jaundice and gastric outlet obstruction until death in >95% of patients in this series. It remains first-line therapy in patients identified as having unresectable disease at laparotomy.

Current utility of staging laparoscopy for pancreatic and peripancreatic neoplasms

BACKGROUND

The routine use of staging laparoscopy in patients with radiographically resectable pancreatic and peripancreatic neoplasms remains controversial.

STUDY DESIGN

We reviewed a prospective database that identified 1,045 patients who underwent staging laparoscopy for radiographically resectable pancreatic or peripancreatic tumors between 1995 and 2005. Radiographic resectability was determined by review of radiographic reports, surgeons' notes, and cross-sectional imaging studies. Factors were assessed for their association with the laparoscopic identification of radiographically occult unresectable disease. Recursive partitioning was used to build a decision tree, with laparoscopic identification of unresectable disease as the outcomes, including only patients since 1999 (modern imaging) and factors available preoperatively.

RESULTS

Unresectable disease was identified laparoscopically in 145 of the 1,045 radiographically resectable patients (14%). Factors associated with radiographically occult unresectable disease included the time period of the study, whether imaging was performed at our institution (internal versus external imaging), primary site, histology, weight loss, and jaundice. Primary site (pancreatic versus nonpancreatic) was identified as the strongest predictor of yield. In patients with nonpancreatic tumors, the yield of laparoscopy was 4%. In patients with pancreatic tumors, the yield of laparoscopy was 14% overall, but was 8.4% in patients with internal imaging versus 17% in patients with external imaging (p < 0.01). This higher-risk subgroup was partitioned by the presence of weight loss, then by primary site within the pancreas.

CONCLUSIONS

During the time period of this study, the yield of staging laparoscopy decreased and exceeded 10% only for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. When high-quality cross-sectional imaging reveals no evidence of unresectable disease, routine staging laparoscopy may not be warranted for pancreatic or peripancreatic tumors other than presumed pancreatic adenocarcinoma.