Bor-Uei Shyr1, Shih-Chin Chen1, Yi-Ming Shyr1, Shin-E Wang2,3. 1. Departments of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 2. Departments of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. sewang0408@gmail.com. 3. Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201 Section 2 Shipai Road, Taipei, 112, Taiwan. sewang0408@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the surgical, oncological, and survival outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with superior mesenteric vein (SMV)/portal vein (PV) resection by either robotic PD (RPD) or open PD (OPD). METHODS: Data of patients with periampullary lesions undergoing PD were retrieved from a prospectively collected computer database. Surgical risks as well as oncological and survival outcomes were compared between patients with (vein resection group) and without SMV/PV resection (without vein resection group). RESULTS: A total of 391 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were enrolled, including 43 (11.0%) and 384 (89.0%) patients with and without vein resection, respectively. Eleven (25.6%) of PDs with vein resection were performed using the robotic approach. Operation time in the vein resection group was significantly longer (median of 8 vs. 7 h). Blood loss, curative resection (R0) rate, and harvested lymph node number were similar between these two groups. Surgical outcomes including postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), chyle leakage, wound infection, and hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups. There was no survival difference between these groups, with 1- and 3-year survival rates of 92.6% and 26.5%, respectively, for vein resection group, vs. 70.3% and 37.2%, respectively, for the without vein resection group. CONCLUSIONS: PD with vein resection is technically feasible by OPD and RPD in selected patients. Additional SMV/PV would not increase the surgical risks of PD and could achieve similar survival outcomes for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma when compared to PD without vein resection.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the surgical, oncological, and survival outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with superior mesenteric vein (SMV)/portal vein (PV) resection by either robotic PD (RPD) or open PD (OPD). METHODS: Data of patients with periampullary lesions undergoing PD were retrieved from a prospectively collected computer database. Surgical risks as well as oncological and survival outcomes were compared between patients with (vein resection group) and without SMV/PV resection (without vein resection group). RESULTS: A total of 391 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were enrolled, including 43 (11.0%) and 384 (89.0%) patients with and without vein resection, respectively. Eleven (25.6%) of PDs with vein resection were performed using the robotic approach. Operation time in the vein resection group was significantly longer (median of 8 vs. 7 h). Blood loss, curative resection (R0) rate, and harvested lymph node number were similar between these two groups. Surgical outcomes including postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), chyle leakage, wound infection, and hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups. There was no survival difference between these groups, with 1- and 3-year survival rates of 92.6% and 26.5%, respectively, for vein resection group, vs. 70.3% and 37.2%, respectively, for the without vein resection group. CONCLUSIONS:PD with vein resection is technically feasible by OPD and RPD in selected patients. Additional SMV/PV would not increase the surgical risks of PD and could achieve similar survival outcomes for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma when compared to PD without vein resection.
Authors: Jordan M Cloyd; Matthew H G Katz; Laura Prakash; Gauri R Varadhachary; Robert A Wolff; Rachna T Shroff; Milind Javle; David Fogelman; Michael Overman; Christopher H Crane; Eugene J Koay; Prajnan Das; Sunil Krishnan; Bruce D Minsky; Jeffrey H Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Brian Weston; William Ross; Priya Bhosale; Eric P Tamm; Huamin Wang; Anirban Maitra; Michael P Kim; Thomas A Aloia; Jean-Nicholas Vauthey; Jason B Fleming; James L Abbruzzese; Peter W T Pisters; Douglas B Evans; Jeffrey E Lee Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: C Shibata; M Kobari; T Tsuchiya; K Arai; R Anzai; M Takahashi; M Uzuki; T Sawai; T Yamazaki Journal: World J Surg Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: C J Yeo; J L Cameron; T A Sohn; K D Lillemoe; H A Pitt; M A Talamini; R H Hruban; S E Ord; P K Sauter; J Coleman; M L Zahurak; L B Grochow; R A Abrams Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1997-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Moritz N Wente; Johannes A Veit; Claudio Bassi; Christos Dervenis; Abe Fingerhut; Dirk J Gouma; Jakob R Izbicki; John P Neoptolemos; Robert T Padbury; Michael G Sarr; Charles J Yeo; Markus W Büchler Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.982