Cost benefit analysis of mesh reinforcement of stapled left pancreatectomy

The role of main pancreatic duct stent in the enucleation of benign/borderline pancreatic head tumors: a cohort study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to reveal the role of preoperative main pancreatic duct (MPD) stent placement in reducing the intraoperative main pancreatic duct injury rate and the incidence of postoperative pancreatic leakage following pancreatic tumor enucleation.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed for all patients with benign/borderline pancreatic head tumors who were treated with enucleation. The patients were divided into two groups (standard vs. stent) depending on whether they underwent main pancreatic duct stent placement prior to surgery.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were finally included in the analytical cohort. Compared with the standard group, patients in the stent group had a shorter distance between tumors and main pancreatic duct (p=0.01) and presented with larger tumors (p<0.01). The rates of POPF (grade B&C) were 39.1% (9/23) and 20% (2/10) in the standard and stent groups, respectively (p<0.01). Major postoperative complications occurred more frequently in the standard group than in the stent group (14 versus 2; p<0.01). No significant differences in mortality, in-hospital stay or medical cost were observed between the two groups (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

MPD stent placement prior to surgery may facilitate pancreatic tumor enucleation, minimize MPD injury and decrease the occurrence of postoperative fistula.

Prevention and treatment of pancreatic fistula after pancreatic body and tail resection: current status and future directions

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most common and critical complication after pancreatic body and tail resection. How to effectively reduce the occurrence of pancreatic fistula and conduct timely treatment thereafter is an urgent clinical issue to be solved. Recent research standardized the definition of pancreatic fistula and stressed the correlation between POPF classification and patient prognosis. According to the literature, identification of the risk factors for pancreatic fistula contributed to lowering the rate of the complication. Appropriate management of the pancreatic stump and perioperative treatment are of great significance to reduce the rate of POPF in clinical practice. After the occurrence of POPF, the treatment of choice should be determined according to the classification of the pancreatic fistula. However, despite the progress and promising treatment approaches, POPF remains to be a clinical issue that warrants further studies in the future.

An AAST-MITC analysis of pancreatic trauma: Staple or sew? Resect or drain?

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic trauma results in high morbidity and mortality, in part caused by the delay in diagnosis and subsequent organ dysfunction. Optimal operative management strategies remain unclear. We therefore sought to determine CT accuracy in diagnosing pancreatic injury and the morbidity and mortality associated with varying operative strategies.

METHODS

We created a multicenter, pancreatic trauma registry from 18 Level 1 and 2 trauma centers. Adult, blunt or penetrating injured patients from 2005 to 2012 were analyzed. Sensitivity and specificity of CT scan identification of main pancreatic duct injury was calculated against operative findings. Independent predictors for mortality, adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and pancreatic fistula and/or pseudocyst were identified through multivariate regression analysis. The association between outcomes and operative management was measured.

RESULTS

We identified 704 pancreatic injury patients of whom 584 (83%) underwent a pancreas-related procedure. CT grade modestly correlated with OR grade (r 0.39) missing 10 ductal injuries (9 grade III, 1 grade IV) providing 78.7% sensitivity and 61.6% specificity. Independent predictors of mortality were age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), lactate, and number of packed red blood cells transfused. Independent predictors of ARDS were ISS, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and pancreatic fistula (OR 5.2, 2.6-10.1). Among grade III injuries (n = 158, 22.4%), the risk of pancreatic fistula/pseudocyst was reduced when the end of the pancreas was stapled (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.9) compared with sewn and was not affected by duct stitch placement. Drainage alone in grades IV (n = 25) and V (n = 24) injuries carried increased risk of pancreatic fistula/pseudocyst (OR 8.3, 95% CI 2.2-32.9).

CONCLUSION

CT is insufficiently sensitive to reliably identify pancreatic duct injury. Patients with grade III injuries should have their resection site stapled instead of sewn and a duct stitch is unnecessary. Further study is needed to determine if drainage alone should be employed in grades IV and V injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiologic/Diagnostic study, level III.

Standardizing terminology for minimally invasive pancreatic resection

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of literature pertaining to minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). Heterogeneity in MIPR terminology, leads to confusion and inconsistency. The Organizing Committee of the State of the Art Conference on MIPR collaborated to standardize MIPR terminology.

METHODS

After formal literature review for "minimally invasive pancreatic surgery" term, key terminology elements were identified. A questionnaire was created assessing the type of resection, the approach, completion, and conversion. Delphi process was used to identify the level of agreement among the experts.

RESULTS

A systematic terminology template was developed based on combining the approach and resection taking into account the completion. For a solitary approach the term should combine "approach + resection" (e.g. "laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy); for combined approaches the term must combine "first approach + resection" with "second approach + reconstruction" (e.g. "laparoscopic central pancreatectomy" with "open pancreaticojejunostomy") and where conversion has resulted the recommended term is "first approach" + "converted to" + "second approach" + "resection" (e.g. "robot-assisted" "converted to open" "pancreatoduodenectomy") CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines presented are geared towards standardizing terminology for MIPR, establishing a basis for comparative analyses and registries and allow incorporating future surgical and technological advances in MIPR.