PURPOSE: Only small, potentially benign pancreatic tumors located ≥3 mm distant from the main pancreatic duct (MPD) are considered good candidates for enucleation. This study evaluates the outcome of enucleations with regard to their distance to the MPD. METHODS: Clinical characteristics, complications, and outcomes of prospectively documented patients with small (≤30 mm), potentially benign pancreatic tumors, who underwent enucleation, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided in two groups, either deep enucleation (DE, distance ≤3 mm) or standard enucleation (SE, distance >3 mm), as determined by intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS). RESULTS: Sixty patients underwent DE (n = 30) or SE (n = 30) with IOUS. Both groups did not differ regarding age, tumor size, pathology, and operating time. Complications occurred in 24/30 (80 %) patients of the DE group compared to 15/30 (50 %) patients after SE (P = 0.029). Mortality was nil. The most frequent complication was pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurring in 22/30 (73.3 %) patients after DE and 9/30 (30 %) patients undergoing SE (P = 0.002). Especially, the rate of clinically significant POPF types B and C was higher after DE (21 of 30 patients) compared to SE (7 of 30 patients, P = 0.0006). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed DE as the only significant factor that negatively influenced the occurrence of POPF. Postoperative hospital stay tended to be longer after DE (15 vs. 11.5 days, P = 0.050). All but two patients with metastatic gastrinoma and two patients, who died of unrelated causes, showed no evidence of disease after a median follow-up of 24 (3-235) months. CONCLUSIONS: Deep enucleation of small, potentially benign pancreatic tumors should be considered with caution given the high rate of clinically relevant POPF.
PURPOSE: Only small, potentially benign pancreatic tumors located ≥3 mm distant from the main pancreatic duct (MPD) are considered good candidates for enucleation. This study evaluates the outcome of enucleations with regard to their distance to the MPD. METHODS: Clinical characteristics, complications, and outcomes of prospectively documented patients with small (≤30 mm), potentially benign pancreatic tumors, who underwent enucleation, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided in two groups, either deep enucleation (DE, distance ≤3 mm) or standard enucleation (SE, distance >3 mm), as determined by intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS). RESULTS: Sixty patients underwent DE (n = 30) or SE (n = 30) with IOUS. Both groups did not differ regarding age, tumor size, pathology, and operating time. Complications occurred in 24/30 (80 %) patients of the DE group compared to 15/30 (50 %) patients after SE (P = 0.029). Mortality was nil. The most frequent complication was pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurring in 22/30 (73.3 %) patients after DE and 9/30 (30 %) patients undergoing SE (P = 0.002). Especially, the rate of clinically significant POPF types B and C was higher after DE (21 of 30 patients) compared to SE (7 of 30 patients, P = 0.0006). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed DE as the only significant factor that negatively influenced the occurrence of POPF. Postoperative hospital stay tended to be longer after DE (15 vs. 11.5 days, P = 0.050). All but two patients with metastatic gastrinoma and two patients, who died of unrelated causes, showed no evidence of disease after a median follow-up of 24 (3-235) months. CONCLUSIONS: Deep enucleation of small, potentially benign pancreatic tumors should be considered with caution given the high rate of clinically relevant POPF.
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Markus K Diener; Christoph M Seiler; Inga Rossion; Jörg Kleeff; Matthias Glanemann; Giovanni Butturini; Ales Tomazic; Christiane J Bruns; Olivier R C Busch; Stefan Farkas; Orlin Belyaev; John P Neoptolemos; Christopher Halloran; Tobias Keck; Marco Niedergethmann; Klaus Gellert; Helmut Witzigmann; Otto Kollmar; Peter Langer; Ulrich Steger; Jens Neudecker; Frederik Berrevoet; Silke Ganzera; Markus M Heiss; Steffen P Luntz; Thomas Bruckner; Meinhard Kieser; Markus W Büchler Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-04-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; Mark S Talamonti; James S Tomlinson; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Clifford Y Ko; David J Bentrem Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Javier A Cienfuegos; Joseba Salguero; Jorge M Núñez-Córdoba; Miguel Ruiz-Canela; Alberto Benito; Sira Ocaña; Gabriel Zozaya; Pablo Martí-Cruchaga; Fernando Pardo; José Luis Hernández-Lizoáin; Fernando Rotellar Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Bjørn Edwin; Mushegh A Sahakyan; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Marc G Besselink; Marco Braga; Jean-Michel Fabre; Laureano Fernández-Cruz; Brice Gayet; Song Cheol Kim; Igor E Khatkov Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.584