-
Surgery Sep 2014The lymph node (Ln) status of patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an important predictor of survival. The survival benefit of extended...
Definition of a standard lymphadenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).
BACKGROUND
The lymph node (Ln) status of patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an important predictor of survival. The survival benefit of extended lymphadenectomy during pancreatectomy is, however, disputed, and there is no true definition of the optimal extent of the lymphadenectomy. The aim of this study was to formulate a definition for standard lymphadenectomy during pancreatectomy.
METHODS
During a consensus meeting of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery, pancreatic surgeons formulated a consensus statement based on available literature and their experience.
RESULTS
The nomenclature of the Japanese Pancreas Society was accepted by all participants. Extended lymphadenectomy during pancreatoduodenectomy with resection of Ln's along the left side of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and around the celiac trunk, splenic artery, or left gastric artery showed no survival benefit compared with a standard lymphadenectomy. No level I evidence was available on prognostic impact of positive para-aortic Ln's. Consensus was reached on selectively removing suspected Ln's outside the resection area for frozen section. No consensus was reached on continuing or terminating resection in cases where these nodes were positive.
CONCLUSION
Extended lymphadenectomy cannot be recommended. Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy should strive to resect Ln stations no. 5, 6, 8a, 12b1, 12b2, 12c, 13a, 13b, 14a, 14b, 17a, and 17b. For cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas, removal of stations 10, 11, and 18 is standard. Furthermore, lymphadenectomy is important for adequate nodal staging. Both pancreatic resection in relatively fit patients or nonresectional palliative treatment were accepted as acceptable treatment in cases of positive Ln's outside the resection plane. This consensus statement could serve as a guide for surgeons and researchers in future directives and new clinical studies.
Topics: Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy
PubMed: 25061003
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.06.016 -
Endocrine Reviews Apr 2019Pancreatic islet transplantation has become an established approach to β-cell replacement therapy for the treatment of insulin-deficient diabetes. Recent progress in... (Review)
Review
Pancreatic islet transplantation has become an established approach to β-cell replacement therapy for the treatment of insulin-deficient diabetes. Recent progress in techniques for islet isolation, islet culture, and peritransplant management of the islet transplant recipient has resulted in substantial improvements in metabolic and safety outcomes for patients. For patients requiring total or subtotal pancreatectomy for benign disease of the pancreas, isolation of islets from the diseased pancreas with intrahepatic transplantation of autologous islets can prevent or ameliorate postsurgical diabetes, and for patients previously experiencing painful recurrent acute or chronic pancreatitis, quality of life is substantially improved. For patients with type 1 diabetes or insulin-deficient forms of pancreatogenic (type 3c) diabetes, isolation of islets from a deceased donor pancreas with intrahepatic transplantation of allogeneic islets can ameliorate problematic hypoglycemia, stabilize glycemic lability, and maintain on-target glycemic control, consequently with improved quality of life, and often without the requirement for insulin therapy. Because the metabolic benefits are dependent on the numbers of islets transplanted that survive engraftment, recipients of autoislets are limited to receive the number of islets isolated from their own pancreas, whereas recipients of alloislets may receive islets isolated from more than one donor pancreas. The development of alternative sources of islet cells for transplantation, whether from autologous, allogeneic, or xenogeneic tissues, is an active area of investigation that promises to expand access and indications for islet transplantation in the future treatment of diabetes.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Humans; Islets of Langerhans Transplantation; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases
PubMed: 30541144
DOI: 10.1210/er.2018-00154 -
The British Journal of Surgery Jul 2018Studies comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer may report only patients who underwent resection and so survival will be skewed. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Studies comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer may report only patients who underwent resection and so survival will be skewed. The aim of this study was to report survival by intention to treat in a comparison of upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant treatment in resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting median overall survival by intention to treat in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer treated with or without neoadjuvant treatment. Secondary outcomes included overall and R0 resection rate, pathological lymph node rate, reasons for unresectability and toxicity of neoadjuvant treatment.
RESULTS
In total, 38 studies were included with 3484 patients, of whom 1738 (49·9 per cent) had neoadjuvant treatment. The weighted median overall survival by intention to treat was 18·8 months for neoadjuvant treatment and 14·8 months for upfront surgery; the difference was larger among patients whose tumours were resected (26·1 versus 15·0 months respectively). The overall resection rate was lower with neoadjuvant treatment than with upfront surgery (66·0 versus 81·3 per cent; P < 0·001), but the R0 rate was higher (86·8 (95 per cent c.i. 84·6 to 88·7) versus 66·9 (64·2 to 69·6) per cent; P < 0·001). Reported by intention to treat, the R0 rates were 58·0 and 54·9 per cent respectively (P = 0·088). The pathological lymph node rate was 43·8 per cent after neoadjuvant therapy and 64·8 per cent in the upfront surgery group (P < 0·001). Toxicity of at least grade III was reported in up to 64 per cent of the patients.
CONCLUSION
Neoadjuvant treatment appears to improve overall survival by intention to treat, despite lower overall resection rates for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016049374.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Intention to Treat Analysis; Middle Aged; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Survival Rate; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29708592
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10870 -
Surgery Feb 2017Recent literature suggests that chyle leak may complicate up to 10% of pancreatic resections. Treatment depends on its severity, which may include chylous ascites. No... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Recent literature suggests that chyle leak may complicate up to 10% of pancreatic resections. Treatment depends on its severity, which may include chylous ascites. No international consensus definition or grading system of chyle leak currently is available.
METHODS
The International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery, an international panel of pancreatic surgeons working in well-known, high-volume centers, reviewed the literature and worked together to establish a consensus on the definition and classification of chyle leak after pancreatic operation.
RESULTS
Chyle leak was defined as output of milky-colored fluid from a drain, drain site, or wound on or after postoperative day 3, with a triglyceride content ≥110 mg/dL (≥1.2 mmol/L). Three different grades of severity were defined according to the management needed: grade A, no specific intervention other than oral dietary restrictions; grade B, prolongation of hospital stay, nasoenteral nutrition with dietary restriction, total parenteral nutrition, octreotide, maintenance of surgical drains, or placement of new percutaneous drains; and grade C, need for other more invasive in-hospital treatment, intensive care unit admission, or mortality.
CONCLUSION
This classification and grading system for chyle leak after pancreatic resection allows for comparison of outcomes between series. As with the other the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery consensus statements, this classification should facilitate communication and evaluation of different approaches to the prevention and treatment of this complication.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Anastomotic Leak; Chylous Ascites; Consensus; Female; Humans; Internationality; Male; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Risk Assessment; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27692778
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.06.058 -
Current Diabetes Reports Oct 2015A total pancreatectomy and islet autotransplant (TPIAT) offers substantial pain relief and improved quality of life for children who are severely affected by chronic or... (Review)
Review
A total pancreatectomy and islet autotransplant (TPIAT) offers substantial pain relief and improved quality of life for children who are severely affected by chronic or recurrent acute pancreatitis and for whom the usual medical and endoscopic therapies have failed. The pancreas is entirely resected, and the pancreatic islets are isolated from the pancreas and infused back into the patient's liver. Because this is an autologous transplant, no immunosuppression is required. Over several months, the islets engraft in the liver; the patient is then slowly weaned off insulin therapy. Slightly more than 40 % of patients become and remain insulin independent, yet even among patients who remain on insulin, most have some islet function, permitting easier diabetes control. The majority of patients experience pain relief, with significant improvements in health-related quality of life. A TPIAT should be considered for children who are significantly disabled by chronic pancreatitis.
Topics: Child; Diabetes Mellitus; Humans; Islets of Langerhans Transplantation; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatitis; Quality of Life; Transplantation, Autologous
PubMed: 26275441
DOI: 10.1007/s11892-015-0639-9 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Mar 2017The first International conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection was arranged in conjunction with the annual meeting of the International... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The first International conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection was arranged in conjunction with the annual meeting of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA), in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 19th 2016. The presented evidence and outcomes resulting from the session for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is summarized and addressed perioperative outcome, the outcome for cancer and patient selection for the procedure.
METHODS
A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to compare MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy. Patient selection was discussed based on plenary talks, panel discussions and a worldwide survey on MIDP.
RESULTS
Of 582 studies, 52 (40 observational and 12 case-matched) were included in the assessment for outcome for LDP (n = 5023) vs. ODP (n = 16,306) whereas 16 observational comparative studies were identified for cancer outcome. No randomized trials were identified. MIDP resulted in similar outcome to ODP with a tendency for lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay in the MIDP group.
DISCUSSION
Available evidence for comparison of MIDP to ODP is weak, although the number of studies is high. Observed outcomes of MIDP are promising. In the absence of randomized control trials, an international registry should be established.
Topics: Congresses as Topic; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreatectomy; Patient Selection; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28215903
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2017.01.009 -
Updates in Surgery Sep 2016Total pancreatectomy is associated with short- and long-term high complication rate and without evidence of oncologic advantages. Several metabolic consequences are... (Review)
Review
Total pancreatectomy is associated with short- and long-term high complication rate and without evidence of oncologic advantages. Several metabolic consequences are co-related with the apancreatic state. The unstable diabetes related to the total resection of the pancreas expose the patients to short- and long-term life-threatening complications. Severe hypoglycemia is a short-term dangerous complication that can also cause patients' death. Chronic complications of severe diabetes (cardiac and vascular diseases, neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy) are also cause of morbidity, mortality and worsening of quality of life. For this reasons the number of total pancreatectomies performed has certainly decreased over time. However, today there are still some indications for this kind of procedures. Chronic pancreatitis untreatable with conventional treatments, surgical treatment of precancerous pancreatic lesions, surgical treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer and the management of patients with extraordinary high-risk pancreatic texture after pancreaticoduodenectomy represent possible indications for total pancreatectomy and are analyzed in the present paper.
Topics: Decision Making; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27605208
DOI: 10.1007/s13304-016-0388-6 -
Surgery Nov 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy with a specific emphasis on the postoperative pancreatic fistula. For benign and low-grade malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and body, central pancreatectomy may be an alternative to distal pancreatectomy. Exocrine and endocrine insufficiency occur less often after central pancreatectomy, but the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula is higher.
METHODS
An electronic search was performed for studies on elective minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, which reported on major morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula in PubMed, Cochrane Register, Embase, and Google Scholar until June 1, 2021. A review protocol was developed a priori and registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021259738. A meta-regression was performed by using a random effects model.
RESULTS
Overall, 41 studies were included involving 1,004 patients, consisting of 158 laparoscopic minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, 80 robot-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, and 766 open central pancreatectomies. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was 14%, major morbidity 14%, and 30-day mortality 1%. The rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (17% vs 24%, P = .194), major morbidity (17% vs 14%, P = .672), and new-onset diabetes (3% vs 6%, P = .353) did not differ significantly between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, respectively. Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy was associated with significantly fewer blood transfusions, less exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and fewer readmissions compared with open central pancreatectomy. A meta-regression was performed with a random effects model between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy and showed no significant difference for postoperative pancreatic fistula (random effects model 0.16 [0.10; 0.24] with P = .789), major morbidity (random effects model 0.20 [0.15; 0.25] with P = .410), and new-onset diabetes mellitus (random effects model 0.04 [0.02; 0.07] with P = .651).
CONCLUSION
In selected patients and in experienced hands, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy is a safe alternative to open central pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant lesions of the neck and body. Ideally, further research should confirm this with the main focus on postoperative pancreatic fistula and endocrine and exocrine insufficiency.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35987787
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.06.024 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Feb 2022Central pancreatectomy is usually performed to excise lesions of the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. In the last decade, thanks to the advent of novel... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Central pancreatectomy is usually performed to excise lesions of the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. In the last decade, thanks to the advent of novel technologies, surgeons have started to perform this procedure robotically. This review aims to appraise the results and outcomes of robotic central pancreatectomies (RCP) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web Of Science identified studies reporting outcomes of RCP. Pooled prevalence rates of postoperative complications and mortality were computed using random-effect modelling.
RESULTS
Thirteen series involving 265 patients were included. In all cases but one, RCP was performed to excise benign or low-grade tumours. Clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 42.3% of patients. While overall complications were reported in 57.5% of patients, only 9.4% had a Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III. Re-operation was necessary in 0.7% of the patients. New-onset diabetes occurred postoperatively in 0.3% of patients and negligible mortality and open conversion rates were observed.
CONCLUSION
RCP is safe and associated with low perioperative mortality and well preserved postoperative pancreatic function, although burdened by high overall morbidity and POPF rates.
Topics: Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 34625342
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.09.014 -
Surgery Jun 2022Previous studies reported a higher rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy compared to open distal pancreatectomy. It is... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Previous studies reported a higher rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy compared to open distal pancreatectomy. It is unknown whether the clinical impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is comparable with that after open distal pancreatectomy. We aimed to compare not only the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but more importantly, also its clinical impact.
METHODS
This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial investigating a possible beneficial impact of a fibrin patch on the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery grade B/C) after distal pancreatectomy. Primary outcomes of the current analysis are the incidence and clinical impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula after both minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy.
RESULTS
From October 2010 to August 2017, 252 patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were randomized, and data of 247 patients were available for analysis: 87 minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and 160 open distal pancreatectomies. The postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was significantly higher than that after open distal pancreatectomy (28.7% vs 16.9%, P = .029). More patients were discharged with an abdominal surgical drain after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy compared to open distal pancreatectomy (30/87, 34.5% vs 26/160, 16.5%, P = .001). In patients with postoperative pancreatic fistula, additional percutaneous catheter drainage procedures were performed less often (52% vs 84.6%, P = .012), with fewer drainage procedures (median [range], 2 [1-4] vs 2, [1-7], P = .014) after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.
CONCLUSION
In this post hoc analysis, the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was higher than that after open distal pancreatectomy, whereas the clinical impact was less.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34906371
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.11.009