BACKGROUND: A variety of techniques have been described for portal vein (PV) and/or superior mesenteric vein (SMV) resection/reconstruction during a pancreatectomy. The ideal strategy remains unclear. METHODS: Patients who underwent PV/SMV resection/reconstruction during a pancreatectomy from 2005 to 2014 were identified. Medical records and imaging were retrospectively reviewed for operative details and outcomes, with particular emphasis on patency. RESULTS: Ninety patients underwent vein resection/reconstruction with one of five techniques: (i) longitudinal venorrhaphy (LV, n = 17); (ii) transverse venorrhaphy (TV, n = 9); (iii) primary end-to-end (n = 28); (iv) patch venoplasty (PV, n = 17); and (v) interposition graft (IG, n = 19). With a median follow-up of 316 days, thrombosis was observed in 16/90 (18%). The rate of thrombosis varied according to technique. All patients with primary end-to-end or TV remained patent. LV, PV and IG were all associated with significant rates of thrombosis (P = 0.001 versus no thrombosis). Comparing thrombosed to patent, there were no differences with respect to pancreatectomy type, pre-operative knowledge of vein involvement and neoadjuvant therapy. Prophylactic aspirin was used in 69% of the total cohort (66% of patent, 81% of thrombosed) and showed no protective benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Primary end-to-end and TV have superior patency than the alternatives after PV/SMV resection and should be the preferred techniques for short (<3 cm) reconstructions.
BACKGROUND: A variety of techniques have been described for portal vein (PV) and/or superior mesenteric vein (SMV) resection/reconstruction during a pancreatectomy. The ideal strategy remains unclear. METHODS:Patients who underwent PV/SMV resection/reconstruction during a pancreatectomy from 2005 to 2014 were identified. Medical records and imaging were retrospectively reviewed for operative details and outcomes, with particular emphasis on patency. RESULTS: Ninety patients underwent vein resection/reconstruction with one of five techniques: (i) longitudinal venorrhaphy (LV, n = 17); (ii) transverse venorrhaphy (TV, n = 9); (iii) primary end-to-end (n = 28); (iv) patch venoplasty (PV, n = 17); and (v) interposition graft (IG, n = 19). With a median follow-up of 316 days, thrombosis was observed in 16/90 (18%). The rate of thrombosis varied according to technique. All patients with primary end-to-end or TV remained patent. LV, PV and IG were all associated with significant rates of thrombosis (P = 0.001 versus no thrombosis). Comparing thrombosed to patent, there were no differences with respect to pancreatectomy type, pre-operative knowledge of vein involvement and neoadjuvant therapy. Prophylactic aspirin was used in 69% of the total cohort (66% of patent, 81% of thrombosed) and showed no protective benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Primary end-to-end and TV have superior patency than the alternatives after PV/SMV resection and should be the preferred techniques for short (<3 cm) reconstructions.
Authors: Douglas B Evans; Michael B Farnell; Keith D Lillemoe; Charles Vollmer; Steven M Strasberg; Richard D Schulick Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Carrie K Chu; Michael B Farnell; Justin H Nguyen; John A Stauffer; David A Kooby; Guido M Sclabas; Juan M Sarmiento Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Paul Toomey; Jonathan Hernandez; Connor Morton; Lorent Duce; Thomas Farrior; Desiree Villadolid; Sharona Ross; Alexander Rosemurgy Journal: Am Surg Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Dae Y Lee; Erica L Mitchell; Mark A Jones; Gregory J Landry; Timothy K Liem; Brett C Sheppard; Kevin G Billingsley; Gregory L Moneta Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Emre F Yekebas; Dean Bogoevski; Guellue Cataldegirmen; Christina Kunze; Andreas Marx; Yogesh K Vashist; Paulus G Schurr; Lena Liebl; Sabrina Thieltges; Karim A Gawad; Claus Schneider; Jakob R Izbicki Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Chandrajit P Raut; Jennifer F Tseng; Charlotte C Sun; Huamin Wang; Robert A Wolff; Christopher H Crane; Rosa Hwang; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Eddie K Abdalla; Jeffrey E Lee; Peter W T Pisters; Douglas B Evans Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Dyre Kleive; Audun E Berstad; Caroline S Verbeke; Sven P Haugvik; Ivar P Gladhaug; Pål-Dag Line; Knut J Labori Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Kai Siang Chan; Nandhini Srinivasan; Ye Xin Koh; Ek Khoon Tan; Jin Yao Teo; Ser Yee Lee; Peng Chung Cheow; Prema Raj Jeyaraj; Pierce Kah Hoe Chow; London Lucien Peng Jin Ooi; Chung Yip Chan; Alexander Yaw Fui Chung; Brian Kim Poh Goh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 3.240