Comparison between long and short-term venous patencies after pancreatoduodenectomy or total pancreatectomy with portal/superior mesenteric vein resection stratified by reconstruction type

Surgical prophylaxis in pancreatoduodenectomy: Is cephalosporin still the drug of choice in patients with biliary stents in situ?

BACKGROUND

Universal surgical prophylaxis for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is practiced, with cephalosporins recommended in most guidelines. Recent studies suggest piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ) prophylaxis in biliary-stented patients is superior in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs). This study aims to refine surgical prophylaxis recommendations based on the local microbial profile and evaluate the clinical outcomes of biliary-stented compared with non-stented patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all consecutive PD patients at Singapore General Hospital between January 2013 to December 2019. The primary outcome was post-operative SSI rates. Secondary outcomes included rates of ceftriaxone-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus species from intraoperative bile cultures and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

There were 130 biliary-stented and 211 non-stented patients included. Majority of biliary-stented patients received ceftriaxone ± metronidazole prophylaxis (83/130, 63.8 %) while 30/130 (23.8 %) received PTZ. Most non-stented patients received ceftriaxone ± metronidazole prophylaxis (163/211, 77.3 %). Between biliary-stented and non-stented patients, post-operative SSIs (40.8 % vs 38.4 %, p = 0.662), and 30-day mortality rates (1.5 % vs 1.4 %, p = 1.000) were comparable. The adjusted odds of post-operative SSIs was significantly lower in biliary-stented patients prescribed PTZ as compared to non-PTZ prophylaxis (0.29, 95 % CI (0.10-0.79), p = 0.015). Ceftriaxone-resistant Klebsiella spp. and/or Escherichia coli (27.6 % vs 3.8 %, p < 0.001) as well as Enterococcus species (46.1 % vs 11.5 %, p < 0.001), were more prevalent in intraoperative bile cultures of biliary-stented patients, while frequencies in non-stented patients were low.

CONCLUSION

PTZ prophylaxis effectively reduced SSIs in stented patients post-pancreatoduodenectomy. Based on the local microbial profile, ceftriaxone prophylaxis may be used for prophylaxis in non-stented patients.

Technical Strategy for Pancreatic Body Cancers: A Raison d'etre of Distal Pancreatectomy with Portal Resection

BACKGROUND

Advancements in multiagent chemotherapy have expanded the surgical indications for pancreatic cancer. Although pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with portal vein resection (PVR) has become widely adopted, distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR remains rarely performed because of its technical complexity. This study was designed to assess the feasibility of DP-PVR compared with PD-PVR for pancreatic body cancers, with a focus on PV complications and providing optimal reconstruction techniques when DP-PVR is necessary.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive pancreatic body cancer patients who underwent pancreatectomy with PVR between 2005 and 2020. An algorithm based on the anatomical relationship between the arteries and PV was used for optimal surgical selection.

RESULTS

Among 119 patients, 32 underwent DP-PVR and 87 underwent PD-PVR. Various reconstruction techniques were employed in DP-PVR cases, including patch reconstruction, graft interposition, and wedge resection. The majority of PD-PVR cases involved end-to-end anastomosis. The length of PVR was shorter in DP-PVR (25 vs. 40 mm; p < 0.001). Although Clavien-Dindo ≥3a was higher in DP-PVR (p = 0.002), inpatient mortality and R0 status were similar. Complete PV occlusion occurred more frequently in DP-PVR than in PD-PVR (21.9% vs. 1.1%; p < 0.001). A cutoff value of 30 mm for PVR length was determined to be predictive of nonrecurrence-related PV occlusion after DP-PVR. The two groups did not differ significantly in recurrence or overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

DP-PVR had higher occlusion and postoperative complication rates than PD-PVR. These findings support the proposed algorithm and emphasize the importance of meticulous surgical manipulation when DP-PVR is deemed necessary.

Cryopreserved allografts versus end-to-end anastomosis for the reconstruction of a segment-resected portomesenteric vein during advanced pancreatic cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Porto-mesenteric vein (PMV) infiltration of pancreatic cancer is classified as borderline resectable cancer. For en-bloc resectability, the probability of PMV resection and reconstruction is the most decisive factor. The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze PMV resection and reconstruction during pancreatic cancer surgery using end-to-end anastomosis (EA) and a cryopreserved allograft (AG) and to verify the effectiveness of reconstruction using an AG.

METHODS

Between May 2012 and June 2021, 84 patients (65 underwent EA, and 19 received AG reconstruction) underwent pancreatic cancer surgery with PMV reconstruction. An AG is a cadaveric graft with a diameter of 8-12 mm and is obtained from a liver transplant donor. Patency after reconstruction, disease recurrence, overall survival, and perioperative factors were assessed.

RESULTS

The median age was higher in EA patients (p = .022) and neoadjuvant therapy (p = .02) was more in AG patients. Upon histopathological examination, the R0 resection margin did not show a significant difference by reconstruction method. During a 36-month survival analysis, primary patency was significantly superior in EA patients (p = .004), and there was no significant difference in recurrence-free survival (p = .628) or overall survival (p = .638) rates.

CONCLUSION

Compared with EA, AG reconstruction after PMV resection during pancreatic cancer surgery showed a lower primary patency, but there was no difference in recurrence-free or overall survival rates. Therefore, the use of AG can be a viable option for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer surgery if the patient is properly followed-up postoperatively.

Portal Vein Resection in Pancreatic Cancer Surgery: Risk of Thrombosis and Radicality Determine Survival

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes of pancreatic cancer [pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)] surgery with concomitant portal vein resection (PVR), focusing on the PVR type according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

BACKGROUND

Surgery offers the only chance for cure in PDAC. PVR is often performed for borderline or locally advanced tumors.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with PDAC operated between January 2006 and January 2018 were included. Clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes were analyzed and tested for survival prediction.

RESULTS

Of 2265 PDAC resections, 1571 (69.4%) were standard resections and 694 (30.6%) were resections with PVR, including 149 (21.5%) tangential resections with venorrhaphy (ISGPS type 1), 21 (3.0%) resections with patch reconstruction (type 2), 491 (70.7%) end-to-end anastomoses (type 3), and 33 (4.8%) resections with graft interposition (type 4). The 90-day mortality rate was 2.6% after standard resection and 6.3% after resection with PVR ( P <0.0001). Postoperative portal vein thrombosis and pancreas-specific surgical complications most frequently occurred after PVR with graft interposition (21.2% and 48.5%, respectively). In multivariable analysis, age 70 years and above, ASA stages 3/4, increased preoperative serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9, neoadjuvant treatment, total pancreatectomy, PVR, higher UICC stage, and R+ resections were significant negative prognostic factors for overall survival. Radical R0 (>1 mm) resection resulted in 23.3 months of median survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest single-center, comparative cohort study of PVR in PDAC surgery, showing that postoperative morbidity correlates with the reconstruction type. When radical resection is achieved, thrombosis risk is outweighed by beneficial overall survival times of nearly 2 years.

The short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy combining with different type of mesentericoportal vein resection and reconstruction for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma: a Chinese multicenter retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The results of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy combining with mesentericoportal vein resection and reconstruction (LPD-MPVRs) for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma are rarely reported. The aim of present study was to explore the short- and long-term outcomes of different type of LPD-MPVRs.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LPD-MPVRs in 14 Chinese high-volume pancreatic centers between June 2014 and December 2020 were selected and compared.

RESULTS

In total, 142 patients were included and were divided into primary closure (n = 56), end-end anastomosis (n = 43), or interposition graft (n = 43). Median overall survival (OS) and median progress-free survival (PFS) between primary closure and end-end anastomosis had no difference (both P > 0.05). As compared to primary closure and end-end anastomosis, interposition graft had the worst median OS (12 months versus 19 months versus 17 months, P = 0.001) and the worst median PFS (6 months versus 15 months versus 12 months, P < 0.000). As compared to primary closure, interposition graft had almost double risk in major morbidity (16.3 percent versus 8.9 percent) and about triple risk (10 percent versus 3.6 percent) in 90-day mortality, while End-end anastomosis had only one fourth major morbidity (2.3 percent versus 8.9 percent). Multivariate analysis revealed postoperation hospital stay, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, number of positive lymph nodes had negative impact on OS, while R0, R1 surgical margin had protective effect on OS. Postoperative hospital stay had negative impact on PFS, while primary closure, end-end anastomosis, short-term vascular patency, and short-term vascular stenosis positively related to PFS.

CONCLUSIONS

In LPD-MPVRs, interposition graft had the worst OS, the worst PFS, the highest rate of major morbidity, and the highest rate of 90-day mortality. While there were no differences in OS and PFS between primary closure and end-end anastomosis.

Vascular Resection in Pancreatectomy—Is It Safe and Useful for Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer?

Simple Summary

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a lethal disease with poor prognosis and increased incidence. Surgical resection R0 remains the most important treatment to prolong survival in PDAC patients. In borderline and locally advanced cancer, vascular resection and reconstruction during pancreatectomy enables achieving R0 resection. This study is a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the role of venous and arterial resection with vascular reconstruction in the treatment of pancreatic cancer.

Abstract

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a lethal disease with poor prognosis and increased incidence. Surgical resection R0 remains the most important treatment to prolong survival in PDAC patients. In borderline and locally advanced cancer, vascular resection and reconstruction during pancreatectomy enables achieving R0 resection. This study is a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the role of venous and arterial resection with vascular reconstruction in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. The literature review is focused on the use of venous and arterial resection with immediate vascular reconstruction in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Different types of venous and arterial resections are widely described. Different methods of vascular reconstructions, from primary vessel closure, through end-to-end vascular anastomosis, to interposition grafts with use autologous veins (internal jugular vein, saphenous vein, superficial femoral vein, external or internal iliac veins, inferior mesenteric vein, and left renal vein or gonadal vein), autologous substitute grafts constructed from various parts of parietal peritoneum including falciform ligament, cryopreserved and synthetic allografts. The most attention was given to the most common venous reconstructions, such as end-to-end anastomosis and interposition graft with the use of an autologous vein. Moreover, we presented mortality and morbidity rates as well as vascular patency and survival following pancreatectomy combined with vascular resection reported in cited articles.

Falciform ligament tubular graft for mesenteric-portal vein reconstruction during pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Portal vein resection and reconstruction in locally advanced pancreatic cancer represents a potentially curative treatment in selected patients without increasing surgical mortality. However, vascular reconstruction after segmental venous resection is challenging. The parietal peritoneum has emerged as a venous substitute but few reports include its use as a tubular graft. We report a retrospective series of portal vein reconstruction using a falciform ligament tubular graft during pancreaticoduodenectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Technical aspects and short-term morbidity and mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy with falciform ligament tubular graft interposition were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 21 patients who used parietal peritoneum for venous substitution between 2015 and 2019, eight underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy with venous resection and reconstruction using interposition of falciform ligament tubular graft. The mean duration of surgery and clamping time were 350 and 27 min, respectively. No perioperative blood transfusion was required. All the grafts were patent the day after surgery. No complication related to venous obstruction was detected during the hospital stay. Two patients had postoperative pancreatic fistula. No further intervention was needed. The 90-day mortality was null.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of interposition of falciform ligament tubular graft for portal venous reconstruction during pancreaticoduodenectomy seems to be a reliable, inexpensive, and safe procedure.

Venous Reconstruction During Pancreatectomy Using Polytetrafluoroethylene Grafts: A Single-Center Experience with Standardized Perioperative Management

BACKGROUND

Although primary end-to-end anastomosis is preferred for portal vein-superior mesenteric vein (PV-SMV) reconstruction, interposition graft use may be required in some situations. We investigated the efficacy of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts when used during pancreatectomy in this context.

METHODS

From 2014 to 2019, 19 patients who underwent pancreatectomy requiring PV-SMV reconstruction using ringed PTFE grafts were entered prospectively into a clinical database (NCT02871336, CNIL No. Sy50955016U). Unfractionated heparin was used during the first 24 h postoperatively. The administration of low-molecular-weight heparin was initiated twice a day (two injections of 1 mg/kg enoxaparin) on postoperative day 2 and was continued until the first clinical follow-up. Patency was assessed by CT scan before home discharge. Patients were switched to antiplatelet therapy (75 mg of aspirin-based drug Kardegic^®) without a deadline.

RESULTS

Pancreatoduodenectomy was the most commonly performed procedure (15 patients, 79%), and pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma was the predominant etiology (17 patients, 89%). The median PTFE graft diameter and length were 10 mm and 8 cm, respectively. The median clamping time was 25 min. The overall severe morbidity and 90-day mortality values were 21% and 10%, respectively. None of the patients experienced anticoagulation-related morbidity or PTFE graft-related infection. The 6-month PTFE graft patency rate was 68%. Patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy showed a higher late thrombosis rate than those who underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy (50% vs. 8%, p = 0.049). The median long-term PTFE graft patency duration was 37 months.

CONCLUSIONS

PTFE reconstruction can be safely performed with simple perioperative management in cases requiring interposition graft use.