PURPOSE: A few randomized controlled trials have questioned the justification of pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PpPD) for pancreatic cancer and periampullary cancer. However, the characteristics of pancreatic cancer are remarkably different from those of other periampullary cancers, so the outcomes of PD and PpPD for pancreatic cancer are being re-evaluated. METHODS: We studied retrospectively, 55 patients who underwent PpPD at Wakayama Medical University Hospital between 1999 and 2005, when PpPD was available, for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. The main outcome measures were the postoperative complications, mortality, and survival of the patients who underwent PpPD vs. those who underwent conventional pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between PD and PpPD in postoperative complications; however, the incidences of delayed gastric emptying (DGE) differed significantly according to the type of reconstruction (P < 0.01). The body weight ratio and the incidence of diarrhea 6 months after PpPD and PD were similar. Patients treated with PD had a higher duodenal invasion rate than those treated with PpPD (P < 0.05); therefore, the cause-specific survival of the PpPD patients was better than that of the PD patients (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The surgical outcomes and incidence of postoperative complications in this series suggest that PpPD is an appropriate surgical procedure for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
PURPOSE: A few randomized controlled trials have questioned the justification of pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PpPD) for pancreatic cancer and periampullary cancer. However, the characteristics of pancreatic cancer are remarkably different from those of other periampullary cancers, so the outcomes of PD and PpPD for pancreatic cancer are being re-evaluated. METHODS: We studied retrospectively, 55 patients who underwent PpPD at Wakayama Medical University Hospital between 1999 and 2005, when PpPD was available, for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. The main outcome measures were the postoperative complications, mortality, and survival of the patients who underwent PpPD vs. those who underwent conventional pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between PD and PpPD in postoperative complications; however, the incidences of delayed gastric emptying (DGE) differed significantly according to the type of reconstruction (P < 0.01). The body weight ratio and the incidence of diarrhea 6 months after PpPD and PD were similar. Patients treated with PD had a higher duodenal invasion rate than those treated with PpPD (P < 0.05); therefore, the cause-specific survival of the PpPD patients was better than that of the PDpatients (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The surgical outcomes and incidence of postoperative complications in this series suggest that PpPD is an appropriate surgical procedure for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Authors: S Pedrazzoli; V DiCarlo; R Dionigi; F Mosca; P Pederzoli; C Pasquali; G Klöppel; K Dhaene; F Michelassi Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 12.969