AIM: The aim of the study was to determine the impact of replaced or accessory right hepatic artery (RARHA) during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA). METHODS: Four hundred seventy-one consecutive patients underwent PD for PA at the two institutions; 47 patients (10%) had RARHA: 16 patients (neoRARHA group) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and 31 patients did not receive preoperative treatment (RARHA group). Thirty-one matched patients without RARHA comprised our control group. RESULTS: RARHA was preserved in 44 patients; three patients with involved RARHA had reconstruction (n = 2) or ligation (n = 1). Patients with R1 resection (n = 8) had tumor size ≥3 cm. Patients in the neoRARHA group had identical positive margin rate when compared with patients in RARHA group (p = 0.6). No difference was noted in median or 3-year overall survival times between RARHA group and control group. Two patients in RARHA group with involved RARHA died of disease progression after 6 and 12 months of follow-up. One patient in neoRARHA group with involved RARHA was still alive without recurrence after 28 months' follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologic findings did not show increased positive margins despite preservation of RARHA. In contrast, patients with frank RARHA involvement seemed to have poor survival. Thus, patients with suspicion of involved RARHA should be considered for neoadjuvant chemoradiation.
AIM: The aim of the study was to determine the impact of replaced or accessory right hepatic artery (RARHA) during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA). METHODS: Four hundred seventy-one consecutive patients underwent PD for PA at the two institutions; 47 patients (10%) had RARHA: 16 patients (neoRARHA group) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and 31 patients did not receive preoperative treatment (RARHA group). Thirty-one matched patients without RARHA comprised our control group. RESULTS: RARHA was preserved in 44 patients; three patients with involved RARHA had reconstruction (n = 2) or ligation (n = 1). Patients with R1 resection (n = 8) had tumor size ≥3 cm. Patients in the neoRARHA group had identical positive margin rate when compared with patients in RARHA group (p = 0.6). No difference was noted in median or 3-year overall survival times between RARHA group and control group. Two patients in RARHA group with involved RARHA died of disease progression after 6 and 12 months of follow-up. One patient in neoRARHA group with involved RARHA was still alive without recurrence after 28 months' follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:Pathologic findings did not show increased positive margins despite preservation of RARHA. In contrast, patients with frank RARHA involvement seemed to have poor survival. Thus, patients with suspicion of involved RARHA should be considered for neoadjuvant chemoradiation.
Authors: Irene Esposito; Jörg Kleeff; Frank Bergmann; Caroline Reiser; Esther Herpel; Helmut Friess; Peter Schirmacher; Markus W Büchler Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; Mark S Talamonti; Stephen F Sener; Malcolm M Bilimoria; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Clifford Y Ko; David J Bentrem Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2008-06-30 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Ji Hun Kim; Raquel Gonzalez-Heredia; Despoina Daskalaki; Mohammad Rashdan; Mario Masrur; Pier C Giulianotti Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Wietse J Eshuis; Klaartje M Olde Loohuis; Olivier R C Busch; Thomas M van Gulik; Dirk J Gouma Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2011-01-27 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Peter T W Kim; Sara Temple; Eshetu G Atenafu; Sean P Cleary; Carol-Anne Moulton; Ian D McGilvray; Steven Gallinger; Paul D Greig; Alice C Wei Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 3.647