De Pauw V, Pezzullo M, Bali MA, El Moussaoui I, Racu ML, D'haene N, Bouchart C, Closset J, Van Laethem JL, Navez J. Peritoneal patch in vascular reconstruction during pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer: a single Centre experience.
Acta Chir Belg 2023;
123:257-265. [PMID:
34503397 DOI:
10.1080/00015458.2021.1979173]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2021] [Accepted: 09/04/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Concomitant venous resection during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma with mesenterico-portal vein involvement is increasingly performed to achieve oncological resection. This study aims to report a single centre experience in peritoneal patch (PP) as autologous graft for vascular reconstruction (VR) during PD.
METHODS
A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent PD + VR with PP between December 2019 and September 2020 was performed, using a prospective collected database. Postoperative outcome and pathological margins were evaluated. Venous patency was assessed by computed tomography at day 7 and week 12 post surgery.
RESULTS
Fifteen patients underwent PD + VR with PP reconstruction for pancreatic cancer, including one total pancreatectomy. VR consisted of lateral (n = 14) or tubular (n = 1) patch. The median PP length was 30 mm [26.3-33.8] and venous clamping time 30 min [27.5-39.0]. Computed tomography showed a patent VR in 93.3% and 53.3% after 7 days and 12 weeks, respectively; venous patency loss was always asymptomatic. The only postoperative VR-related complication was one mesenteric venous thrombosis. Five other patients experienced VR-unrelated complications: septic shock (n = 3), biliary fistula (n = 1) and post-traumatic subdural hematoma (n = 1). Mortality was nihil. At pathology, R0 resection (≥1 mm) was observed in 40.0% (6/15), venous margin was free in 46.7% (7/15), and venous wall was involved in 40.0% (6/15).
CONCLUSIONS
Use of PP as venous substitute during PD + VR is safe and feasible with an acceptable postoperative morbidity, and a decreased but asymptomatic venous patency after 12 weeks which should question the role of anticoagulation therapy.
Collapse