Trends in indications, complications and outcomes for venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy. BJS 2017; 104: 1558-1567.
Published: 17th August 2017
Authors: D. Kleive, M. A. Sahakyan, A. E. Berstad, C. S. Verbeke, I. P. Gladhaug, B. Edwin et al.
Pancreatoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric–portal vein resection has become a common procedure in pancreatic surgery. The aim of this study was to compare standard pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatoduodenectomy plus venous resection at a high‐volume centre, and to examine trends in management and outcome over a decade for the latter procedure.
This retrospective observational study included all patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy with or without venous resection at Oslo University Hospital between January 2006 and December 2015. Trends were evaluated by assessing preoperative clinical and radiological characteristics, as well as perioperative outcomes in three time intervals (early, intermediate and late).
A total of 784 patients had a pancreatoduodenectomy, of whom 127 (16·2 per cent) underwent venous resection. Venous resection resulted in a longer operating time (median 422
Despite an initial improvement in severe complications for venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy, this was not maintained over time. Every fourth patient with venous resection needed relaparotomy, most frequently for bleeding.Full text
You may also be interested in
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy response influences outcomes in non‐colorectal, non‐neuroendocrine liver metastases.
Authors: A. M. Lucchese, A. N. Kalil, A. Ruiz, V. Karam, O. Ciacio, G. Pittau et al.
Notes: Multimodal therapy works
Authors: B. Groot Koerkamp, W. R. Jarnagin
Development and validation of a difficulty score to predict intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resection.
Authors: M. C. Halls, G. Berardi, F. Cipriani, L. Barkhatov, P. Lainas, S. Harris et al.
Notes: Helps improve selection for laparoscopic liver resection
Validation of at least 1 mm as cut‐off for resection margins for pancreatic adenocarcinoma of the body and tail.
Authors: T. Hank, U. Hinz, I. Tarantino, J. Kaiser, W. Niesen, F. Bergmann et al.
Notes: Validating 1mm for R0
Meta‐analysis comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 946-958.
Authors: E. Versteijne, J. A. Vogel, M. G. Besselink, O. R. C. Busch, J. W. Wilmink, J. G. Daams et al.
Notes: Improved survival with neoadjuvant treatment
Authors: G. A. Margonis, K. Sasaki, S. Gholami, Y. Kim, N. Andreatos, N. Rezaee et al.
Notes: Predicts survival
Reappraisal of classification of distal cholangiocarcinoma based on tumour depth. BJS 2018; 105: 867-875.
Authors: H. Aoyama, T. Ebata, M. Hattori, M. Takano, H. Yamamoto, M. Inoue et al.
Notes: Better for T staging
Prediction of major complications after hepatectomy using liver stiffness values determined by magnetic resonance elastography.
Authors: N. Sato, A. Kenjo, T. Kimura, R. Okada, T. Ishigame, Y. Kofunato et al.
Notes: liver stiffness predicts complications
Prognostic impact of perihepatic lymph node metastases in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases.
Authors: M. Okuno, C. Goumard, T. Mizuno, S. Kopetz, K. Omichi, C.‐W. D. Tzeng et al.
Notes: Bad sign of advanced disease
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of the effect of a fibrin sealant patch on pancreatic fistula formation after pancreatoduodenectomy. BJS 2018; 105: 811-819.
Authors: M. Schindl, R. Függer, P. Götzinger, F. Längle, M. Zitt, S. Stättner et al.
Notes: Not effective in reducing complications
Trends in use of lymphadenectomy in surgery with curative intent for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. BJS 2018; 105: 857-866.
Authors: X.‐F. Zhang, J. Chakedis, F. Bagante, Q. Chen, E. W. Beal, Y. Lv et al.
Notes: Lymphadenectomy is important
Meta‐analysis of an artery‐first approach versus standard pancreatoduodenectomy on perioperative outcomes and survival. BJS 2018; 105: 628-636.
Authors: N. Ironside, S. G. Barreto, B. Loveday, S. V. Shrikhande, J. A. Windsor, S. Pandanaboyana et al.
Notes: Benefits to artery‐first approach