Literature DB >> 35403874

Complications in Distal Pancreatectomy versus Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy: A Disease Risk Score Analysis Utilizing National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Data.

Thomas L Sutton1, Kristin C Potter2, Skye C Mayo3, Rodney Pommier3, Erin W Gilbert1, Brett C Sheppard4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) was developed to improve R0 resections and lymph node harvests versus distal pancreatectomy (DP) in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC); relative complication rates are understudied.
METHODS: Patients undergoing distal pancreas resections from 2006 to 2020 were identified from our institutional NSQIP database, grouped by resection method, and evaluated for the following outcomes: postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), clinically relevant POPF (crPOPF), incisional surgical site infection (iSSI), organ space SSI (osSSI), and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 (CD ≥ 3) complications using logistic regression. Patients were matched 1:1 based on disease risk score.
RESULTS: Two-hundred-thirty-six and 117 patients underwent DP and RAMPS, respectively. POPF, crPOPF, CD ≥ 3 complications, iSSI, and osSSIs occurred in 105 (30%), 43 (12%), 74 (21%), 34 (10%) and 52 (15%) patients, respectively. Disease risk score matching yielded 89 similar patients per group. On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing RAMPS were not significantly more likely to experience POPF (OR 0.69, P = 0.26), crPOPF (OR 0.41, P = 0.72), CD ≥ 3 complication (OR 0.78, P = 0.44), iSSI (OR 0.58, P = 0.27), or osSSI (OR 0.93, P = 0.86). Of patients with PDAC (n = 108) mean nodal harvest were 14.8 (SD 11.30) and 19.4 (SD 7.19) nodes for patients undergoing DP and RAMPS, respectively (P = 0.01). Six patients (20%) undergoing DP had positive margins versus 12 (15%) undergoing RAMPS (P = 0.56). At a median follow-up of 17 months, there was no difference in locoregional recurrence-free survival (P = 0.32) or overall survival (P = 0.92) on Kaplan-Meier analysis.
CONCLUSION: RAMPS does not result in increased complications compared to DP and routine use is encouraged in pancreatic malignancies.
© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Société Internationale de Chirurgie.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35403874     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-022-06545-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.282


  26 in total

1.  Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy.

Authors:  Steven M Strasberg; Jeffrey A Drebin; David Linehan
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.982

2.  Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) versus conventional distal pancreatosplenectomy (CDPS) for left-sided pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Menghua Dai; Hanyu Zhang; Yatong Li; Cheng Xing; Cheng Ding; Quan Liao; Taiping Zhang; Junchao Guo; Qiang Xu; Xianlin Han; Wenjing Liu; Qiaofei Liu
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2021-01-03       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 3.  Role of Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) and Pancreatic Cancer.

Authors:  Yun Shin Chun
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for all pancreatic body and tail tumors: rationale and results.

Authors:  Masillamany Sivasanker; Ashwin Desouza; Manish Bhandare; Vikram Chaudhari; Mahesh Goel; Shailesh V Shrikhande
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2019-02-21       Impact factor: 3.445

5.  Comparison of Surgical Outcomes Between Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) and Standard Retrograde Pancreatosplenectomy (SPRS) for Left-Sided Pancreatic Cancer.

Authors:  Toshiya Abe; Kenoki Ohuchida; Yoshihiro Miyasaka; Takao Ohtsuka; Yoshinao Oda; Masafumi Nakamura
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Impact of total lymph node count and lymph node ratio on staging and survival after pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a large, population-based analysis.

Authors:  Mark B Slidell; David C Chang; John L Cameron; Christopher Wolfgang; Joseph M Herman; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2007-09-26       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Comparison of standard distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy with radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy.

Authors:  Paul Trottman; Katrina Swett; Perry Shen; Joseph Sirintrapun
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 0.688

8.  Initial experience with radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy in a single institution.

Authors:  Eun Young Kim; Young Kyoung You; Dong Goo Kim; Tae Ho Hong
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 1.859

Review 9.  Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy versus standard procedure in the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Feng Cao; Jia Li; Ang Li; Fei Li
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Assessement of postoperative long-term survival quality and complications associated with radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Quanyu Zhou; Jie Gong; Qingyun Xie; Yu Liu; Qing Wang; Zehua Lei
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.