Thomas Malinka1, Fritz Klein2, Andreas Andreou2, Johann Pratschke2, Marcus Bahra2. 1. Department of Surgery, Charité Campus Mitte and Charité Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. Thomas.Malinka@charite.de. 2. Department of Surgery, Charité Campus Mitte and Charité Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For pancreatic tumors located in the body or tail of the pancreas, distal pancreatectomy (DP) remains the surgical procedure of choice to achieve radical tumor removal. Purpose of this study was to evaluate outcome and overall survival of patients who underwent DP combined with multivisceral resection (MVR). METHODS: Retrospective single-center case-matched analysis. Between January 1994 and June 2014, 494 consecutive patients were entered into a prospective database, and 126 patients undergoing DP + MVR (cases) were matched with 126 patients undergoing DP (controls) for gender, age, and underlying final diagnosis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patient demographics. Rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (36 (28.6%) vs. 29 (23.0%); p = 0.388) and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) (7 (5.5%) vs. 5 (3.9%); p = 0.769) did not reveal any significant differences. Although operative time (237.8 ± 57.9 vs. 203.5 ± 34.5; p < 0.001) and the necessity for intraoperative transfusions (18 (14.3%) vs. 5 (4.0%); p < 0.001) was significantly higher, the number of patients with major complications (the Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) was not increased (27 (19.8%) vs. 20 (15.9%); p = 0.332) in the DP + MVR group. Midterm survival analysis indicated no significant difference for adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine tumors for either group. CONCLUSION: DP + MVR is a feasible and safe surgical procedure to achieve radical tumor removal and can offer beneficial survival outcomes. Although operative time and intraoperative transfusions are enhanced, POPF, PPH, or major complications (the Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) are not significantly increased after DP + MVR. DP + MVR can therefore be recommended in selected patients for resection of extended tumors within the concept of interdisciplinary strategies.
BACKGROUND: For pancreatic tumors located in the body or tail of the pancreas, distal pancreatectomy (DP) remains the surgical procedure of choice to achieve radical tumor removal. Purpose of this study was to evaluate outcome and overall survival of patients who underwent DP combined with multivisceral resection (MVR). METHODS: Retrospective single-center case-matched analysis. Between January 1994 and June 2014, 494 consecutive patients were entered into a prospective database, and 126 patients undergoing DP + MVR (cases) were matched with 126 patients undergoing DP (controls) for gender, age, and underlying final diagnosis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patient demographics. Rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (36 (28.6%) vs. 29 (23.0%); p = 0.388) and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) (7 (5.5%) vs. 5 (3.9%); p = 0.769) did not reveal any significant differences. Although operative time (237.8 ± 57.9 vs. 203.5 ± 34.5; p < 0.001) and the necessity for intraoperative transfusions (18 (14.3%) vs. 5 (4.0%); p < 0.001) was significantly higher, the number of patients with major complications (the Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) was not increased (27 (19.8%) vs. 20 (15.9%); p = 0.332) in the DP + MVR group. Midterm survival analysis indicated no significant difference for adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine tumors for either group. CONCLUSION:DP + MVR is a feasible and safe surgical procedure to achieve radical tumor removal and can offer beneficial survival outcomes. Although operative time and intraoperative transfusions are enhanced, POPF, PPH, or major complications (the Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) are not significantly increased after DP + MVR. DP + MVR can therefore be recommended in selected patients for resection of extended tumors within the concept of interdisciplinary strategies.
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: Jörg Kleeff; Markus K Diener; Kaspar Z'graggen; Ulf Hinz; Markus Wagner; Jeannine Bachmann; Jörg Zehetner; Michael W Müller; Helmut Friess; Markus W Büchler Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Werner Hartwig; Charles M Vollmer; Abe Fingerhut; Charles J Yeo; John P Neoptolemos; Mustapha Adham; Ake Andrén-Sandberg; Horacio J Asbun; Claudio Bassi; Max Bockhorn; Richard Charnley; Kevin C Conlon; Christos Dervenis; Laureano Fernandez-Cruz; Helmut Friess; Dirk J Gouma; Clem W Imrie; Keith D Lillemoe; Miroslav N Milićević; Marco Montorsi; Shailesh V Shrikhande; Yogesh K Vashist; Jakob R Izbicki; Markus W Büchler Journal: Surgery Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Oliver Beetz; Akin Sarisin; Alexander Kaltenborn; Jürgen Klempnauer; Michael Winkler; Gerrit Grannas Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 2.754