Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2008  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 77-83

Pancreatic resectional surgery: An evidence-based perspective


Department of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India

Date of Web Publication1-Aug-2008

Correspondence Address:
Shailesh V Shrikhande
Department of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Ernest Borges Marg, Parel, Mumbai 400 012
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0973-1482.42253

Rights and Permissions
 > Abstract 

A diagnosis of pancreatic cancer carries a very dismal prognosis, with the 5-year survival rate being the lowest of all types of cancer. Surgical resection offers the only hope for cure in these patients. Pancreatic resectional surgery is technically demanding, and while mortality has decreased in centers of excellence, the morbidity remains significant. Numerous controversies exist regarding various aspects of complex pancreatic resections. This review attempts to address these controversies with an evidence-based perspective. We performed a literature search in MEDLINE (www.pubmed.org) with relevant key words and the corresponding MeSH terms. The search was limited to English language publications on human subjects. A manual cross-reference search of the bibliographies of relevant papers was carried out to identify publications for possible inclusion.

Keywords: Delayed gastric emptying, distal pancreatectomy, extended lymphadenectomy, octreotide in pancreatic surgery, pancreatic anastomosis, pancreatic duct stenting, pancreatic fistula, pancreatic resections, pancreaticoduodenectomy, segmental pancreatectomy


How to cite this article:
D'souza MA, Shrikhande SV. Pancreatic resectional surgery: An evidence-based perspective. J Can Res Ther 2008;4:77-83

How to cite this URL:
D'souza MA, Shrikhande SV. Pancreatic resectional surgery: An evidence-based perspective. J Can Res Ther [serial online] 2008 [cited 2019 Dec 9];4:77-83. Available from: http://www.cancerjournal.net/text.asp?2008/4/2/77/42253

A diagnosis of pancreatic cancer carries a very dismal prognosis, with the 5-year survival rate being the lowest of all types of cancer. Surgical resection offers the only chance for cure for these patients. [1] At diagnosis, more than 85% of pancreatic tumors are at an advanced stage and thus potentially curative resection is feasible in only around 10-15% of patients. [2] The standard procedure for pancreatic head lesions is a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), while a distal pancreatectomy (DP) with or without splenectomy is the procedure of choice for body and tail tumors.

While hospital mortality after a PD is now <3-5% in experienced centers, postoperative morbidity despite having decreased considerably still remains significant at around 20-30%. [3] Despite improved outcomes after pancreatic surgery, various controversies still exist; for example, pylorus preservation vs antrectomy during a Whipple's procedure, pancreaticojejunostomy vs pancreaticogastrostomy, use of octreotide in pancreatic surgery, and the role of extended pancreatic resections, segmental pancreatectomy, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery etc. This review attempts to systematically address these issues.


 > Materials and Methods Top


A literature search in MEDLINE ( www.pubmed.org ) was performed with the key words pancreatic resections, pancreaticoduodenectomy, pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, segmental pancreatectomy, delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic anastomosis, pancreaticojejunostomy, pancreaticogastrostomy, pancreatic duct stenting, octreotide in pancreatic surgery, pancreatic fistula, extended lymphadenectomy, pancreatic cancer, staplers in pancreatic surgery, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery and the corresponding MeSH terms. The search was limited to English language publications on human subjects. A manual cross-reference search of the bibliographies of relevant papers was carried out to identify publications for possible inclusion.

Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) vs classical Whipple (cW) [Table 1]

Popularized in 1978 by Traverso and Longmire, [4] it has been postulated that PPPD by preserving the stomach and pyloric function would improve gastrointestinal function and reduce the morbidity associated with an antrectomy and a gastroenterostomy, viz, gastric dumping, biliary reflux gastritis, and ulceration. During the performance of a PPPD, the right gastroepiploic and the right gastric vessels are divided and the duodenum is skeletonized distal to the pylorus. The duodenal bulb is then transected with a stapling device. Criticisms of this surgery have included claims that it is associated with a higher incidence of delayed gastric emptying ((DGE) and that it may be less radical. However, in a study of 140 operative specimens from patients with cancer of the pancreatic head, no extension of tumor tissue adjacent to the pylorus and no lymph node involvement along the lesser and greater curvatures of the stomach could be found. [5] In a prospective, multicenter, randomized study by Tran et al ., PPPD was compared with cW in 170 consecutive patients. [6] Both procedures were comparable with regard to operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and incidence of DGE. There were also no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to overall and disease-free survival. In a recent meta-analysis of 2822 patients by Kocher et al ., both cW and PPPD had similar morbidity rates, with PPPD showing lower mortality and better long-term survival; however, this was not reflected in the subgroup analysis. [7]

Thus, in 2008, both PPPD and cW are recommended operations for resectable periampullary and pancreatic head tumors. [8] As a general guideline, cW is reserved for patients with larger, more extensive tumors or for tumors located in the dorsal part of the head of the pancreas or the first part of the duodenum.


 > Pancreatic Anastomosis Top
[Figure 1]

Pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) vs pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) [Table 2]

Development of a pancreatic fistula after PD is one of the most important causes of procedure-related morbidity and mortality in pancreatic resectional surgery and can result in delayed hemorrhage, local sepsis, wound infection, and DGE. [3],[9]

Ductal occlusion using glue and duct ligation have been found to be associated with very high fistula rates and have largely been abandoned. The safe reconstruction of pancreaticoenteric continuity remains a challenge for the pancreatic surgeon. The risk of fistula formation depends on the consistency of the remnant pancreas, the caliber of the main pancreatic duct, pancreatic vascularity, and the technique of construction of the pancreatic anastomosis. [10],[11] The two commonly employed techniques of pancreatic anastomosis are the PJ and the PG. The PJ can be performed by the dunking method or in a duct-to-mucosa fashion. Only a few randomized controlled studies dealing with different surgical techniques for the management of the pancreatic remnant after PD have been published and, of these, only three randomized trials have been performed that have compared PG vs PJ. [12],[13],[14] Earlier uncontrolled studies, such as those published by Takano et al . and Oussoultzoglou et al ., [15],[16] were in favor of PG reconstruction. A PG is said to be easier to perform due to the close proximity of the stomach and is also said to be less prone to ischemia due the rich gastric blood supply. However none of the three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed any difference in the overall postoperative complication rate or incidence of pancreatic fistula. However, in the study by Bassi et al ., which involved 151 patients, the incidence of biliary fistula, postoperative collections, and DGE were significantly reduced in patients treated by PG. [13]

Two recent meta-analyses have showed that even RCTs had an element of bias and, therefore, no superiority of any one technique could be concluded. [17],[18] Thus, it can be inferred that as long as a duct-to-mucosa tension-free anastomosis between well-perfused tissues is performed, using fine sutures and the consistent practice of a single technique, any type of pancreatic anastomosis should have a good outcome. [3],[19]

Role of magnification in pancreatic anastomosis

Since a duct-to-mucosa anastomosis is crucial for good outcome, meticulous approximation assumes great importance. Some authors have advocated the use of operating loupes to allow precise construction of the pancreatic anastomosis. Recently Traverso et al ., in a retrospective analysis, highlighted the role of the operating microscope in pancreatic anastomosis. He reported a markedly reduced incidence of pancreatic fistula with the use of the operating microscope as compared to that with the use of the operating loupes. [20]

Role of stenting of the main pancreatic duct (MPD)

Stenting of the MPD during the performance of the pancreaticoenteric anastomosis facilitates precise placement of mucosal sutures and also diverts pancreatic juice away from the anastomotic site and, in doing so, is said to improve anastomotic integrity. The results using this strategy have been encouraging. [21],[22] In a prospective but nonrandomized trial in 85 patients, Roder et al . [21] demonstrated that stenting of the pancreatic duct reduced the pancreatic fistula rate to 29.3% from 68% and the median hospital stay from 29 to 13 days. An RCT [23] reported that external drainage of the MPD with a stent reduced the rate of pancreatic fistula after a pancreaticoduodenectomy. On the other hand, some studies, including an RCT by Yeo et al ., have shown no benefit of internal stenting in the prevention of pancreatic leakage and exocrine insufficiency. [24],[25],[26] Thus, available evidence is conflicting and practice depends on personal choice and experience.

Role of octreotide and somatostatin analogues in decreasing the rate of complications and pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery [Table 3]

Octreotide is a synthetic analogue of native somatostatin and, like somatostatin, has been used perioperatively to inhibit pancreatic exocrine secretion. Prospective RCTs conducted in Europe have evaluated the use of subcutaneous octreotide/somatostatin in patients undergoing elective pancreatic resection. [27],[28],[29],[30],[31] These trials concluded that octreotide reduced the incidence of occurrence of pancreatic fistulae and other complications. However, other trials have yielded contradictory results. Studies by Yeo et al . and Lowy et al . showed no benefit with the perioperative use of octreotide in pancreatic resection. [32],[33] Meta-analyses and systematic reviews of octreotide use have also yielded conflicting results. [34],[35] A meta-analysis by Poon et al . of six prospective randomized trials on the prophylactic use of octreotide in pancreatic resections did not show any effect of octreotide in reducing the pancreatic fistula rate. [34] Despite this inconsistent data, many surgeons routinely use octreotide in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. It has been recently suggested that selective administration of octreotide to patients deemed to have high-risk glands (ie, those with soft texture, small duct size, and ampullary, duodenal, cystic or islet-cell pathology) maybe associated with a decreased incidence of pancreatic fistula. [36]

Extended pancreatic resections

Pancreatic cancer is associated with a high frequency of lymph nodal metastases and extension beyond the pancreatic capsule into the retroperitoneum and surrounding structures and vessels. In an attempt to improve outcomes, surgeons have performed radical or extended pancreatectomies. This approach was pioneered by Fortner who performed en bloc resection of the pancreas and surrounding organs, along with a retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. [37] He had very good results at a time when mortality after PD was very high.

Extended resections may include:

  1. Total pancreatectomy (TP)
  2. Extended lymph node dissection (ELND)
  3. Arterial/venous resections with reconstruction


Total pancreatectomy (TP)

The rationale for TP is that it allows for more extensive lymphadenectomy, obviates possible leak from the pancreatic anastomosis, and decreases the chances of a positive cut margin. Disadvantages of a TP include obligate diabetes mellitus, decreased immunity because of splenectomy, and loss of pancreatic exocrine function. Most studies of this procedure have reported worse survival after TP or no survival difference between TP and standard PD. [38],[39],[40] A TP for pancreatic head cancer should not be performed unless, serial positive cut margins on frozen section analysis lead to it, there is a soft pancreas with a very high chance of pancreatic leak, or there is a documented family history of multicentric disease. [41]

Extended lymph node dissection (ELND)

Up to 30% of patients with pancreatic cancer have retroperitoneal lymph node disease that would not be resected by a standard PD. [41] It was hypothesized that survival could be improved by using an ELND to help achieve node negativity and to dissect out lymph nodes that could potentially get infiltrated by malignant cells. ELND involves, in addition to removal of the pancreaticoduodenal nodes, removal of lymph nodes along the hepatic artery, superior mesenteric artery, celiac axis, and between the aorta and the inferior pancreaticoduodenal artery. Furthermore, the anterolateral aspect of the aorta and the inferior vena cava are also dissected. The earliest proponents of ELND were the Japanese, who demonstrated improved survival rates with extended surgery. The first RCT evaluating ELND vs standard lymphadenectomy (SL) was from Italy and by Pedrazzolli et al . [42] Subsequent RCTs comparing ELND vs SL during PD included a large trial with 280 patients by Yeo et al . at the Johns Hopkins University. [43],[44],[45] All these studies failed to show any survival benefit because of the addition of ELND to PD, although the Italian study did show a trend towards improved survival when ELND was performed in node-positive patients. [46] Meta-analyses of SL and ELND by Michalski et al . [47] further confirmed the findings of the above trials that ELND increased morbidity and offered no survival benefit over SL with PD and concluded that ELND should only be performed within controlled trials, if at all.

Arterial/venous resections with reconstruction

Vascular resections can be performed based on two rationales: firstly, to achieve negative resection margins in case of vessel invasion by the tumor or adhesion of the vessel to the tumor, making separation impossible; secondly, it can be performed as part of an extended pancreactectomy with ELND. [41] Vein resections include that of the portal vein (PV), superior mesenteric vein (SMV), or the SMV-PV confluence.

Venous resections followed by graft reconstruction can be performed without increased morbidity and mortality and may be performed to achieve negative resection margins. [48],[49],[50] In contrast, arterial resections of the mesenteric, celiac, and hepatic arteries are rarely performed and are considered by most as contraindicated in PD due to the greatly increased morbidity and mortality. [48],[50],[51]

Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after PD

According to definition, DGE is said to occur when the nasogastric (NG) tube is left in place for 10 or more days and there is also one of the following: emesis after removal of the NG tube, reinsertion of the NG tube, postoperative use of prokinetic agents after the tenth postoperative day, or failure to progress with diet. [52] A number of factors have been known to influence DGE, including removal of the duodenum, extent of lymph node dissection, vascular and neural damage, sepsis, presence of other complications, and type of reconstruction. Horstmann et al . showed that patients without other complications had a DGE rate of 1%, but in the presence of moderate and severe postoperative complications this rate climbed to 28% and 43%, respectively. [53] It is a common perception that an intact pylorus leads to a greater incidence of DGE after PPPD, but a comparison of the incidence of DGE after cW and PPPD suggests that both procedures are equivalent as far as the occurrence of DGE is concerned. [54]

Alternate techniques have been used to reconstitute gastrointestinal continuity after PD with an aim to decrease the incidence of DGE; these techniques have included the use of an undivided Roux-en-Y loop for reconstruction and pyloric dilatation. [55],[56] However, there is level 1 evidence that antecolic reconstruction (as opposed to retrocolic duodenojejunostomy/gastrojejunostomy) is associated with a significantly reduced DGE rate. [57],[58] This is because an antecolic reconstruction avoids the possible torsion or angulation that may occur with a retrocolic anastomosis. There is also convincing evidence that DGE can be reduced by up to 37% with intravenous erythromycin. [52]

Staplers in pancreaticoduodenectomy and total pancreatectomy (TP)

As experience with pancreatic surgery evolves, further innovations and techniques are inevitable in order to decrease operating time and blood loss and increase safety, thus improving outcomes without compromising oncologic principles. For example, the use of stapling devices in pancreatic surgery has been widely reported in the literature by some authors, and the technique has been utilized for various steps during pancreatic surgery. [59],[60],[61],[62]

Two technically challenging maneuvers during PD and TP involve the division of the proximal jejunal mesentery in the area of the duodenojejunal flexure and ligament of Treitz and dissection of the uncinate process from its posterior retroperitoneal attachments and the vascular branches from the superior mesenteric artery and portal vein. Both maneuvers can be safely performed with the aid of endovascular and endo-GIA linear stapler devices. [61],[62]


 > Distal Pancreatectomy (DP) Top


Management of pancreatic remnant after DP: stapled vs hand-sewn closure

Complication rates after DP range between 22-37%, with a relatively high fistula rate of 5-6%. Pancreatic fistulae also remain a major cause of morbidity after distal pancreatectomy. A variety of procedures have been described to reduce the frequency of pancreatic fistula; these include hand-sewn closure [Figure 2], stapled closure, combined stapled and suture closure, fibrin glue application, serosal jejunal patch, and prolamine injection. [63] While hand-sewn closure is a time-tested method, stapler application has gained increasing acceptance with the advent of laparoscopic DP. Knaebel et al . [64] published a meta-analysis that included six studies comparing stapler vs hand-sutured closure; they showed a nonsignificant combined odds ratio for occurrence of a pancreatic fistula of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.35 to 1.26; P = 0.21) in favor of stapler closure. However, more recently, Kleeff et al . [65] published a large, single-institution series of 302 DPs, wherein it was observed that stapler closure was associated with a higher pancreatic fistula rate. It thus appears that the jury is still out and surgeons must follow their own individual experience when dealing with the pancreatic remnant after DP. In hand-sewn closure, the guiding principle should be to make an effort to identify the pancreatic duct, close it with fine sutures, and then close the entire stump with sutures.

The impact of splenectomy on outcomes after DP and TP

Conventionally, the spleen is removed as part of a DP. This has been done with the rationale that splenic preservation might compromise oncologic principles. However, splenectomy is associated with septic postoperative complications, including the risk of overwhelming postsplenectomy sepsis, although the risk is low. To prevent these complications, spleen-preserving DP has been advocated by a number of surgeons. [66],[67] Schwarz et al . [68] studied a group of 326 patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas who underwent DP and TP, with or without splenectomy. They concluded that splenectomy has no significant impact on postoperative recovery, but it negatively influenced long-term survival independent of disease-related factors. They advocated the avoidance of splenectomy unless the splenic capsule was involved by, or adherent to, the tumor; the splenic hilum was infiltrated by the tumor; or nodal clearance mandated a splenectomy. On the other hand, Sledzianowski et al . [69] failed to prove the importance of splenic conservation in DP. Mirza et al . concluded that spleen preservation did not influence outcomes after DP and TP and that in order to fully assess the effect of splenectomy on survival after pancreatectomy, larger series of patients would be required. [70]

Segmental pancreatectomy [Figure 3]

Small and circumscribed benign and low-grade malignant tumors of the body, neck, and tail of the pancreas have been traditionally removed by PD or DP. However, these procedures, despite low mortality, result in a significant loss of normal pancreatic parenchyma, leading to endocrine and exocrine pancreatic dysfunction and, in addition, are associated with anastomotic complications and problems related to the alteration of the biliodigestive passages and splenectomy. [68],[71]

To avoid these, many surgeons perform enucleation of these small tumors. However, despite apparently avoiding the pancreatic duct, complications like pancreatic fistula, acute pancreatitis, and pseudocysts are common. [72]

A segmental pancreatectomy, alternatively known as middle segmental pancreatic resection, median pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, or intermediate resection, involves removal of the lesion with adequate margins on either side, the procedure being guided by intraoperative frozen-section analysis. This preserves the normal pancreatic parenchyma, the bile duct, duodenum, and spleen. The cephalic stump is then sutured and the distal stump anastomosed to a Roux-en-Y jejunal loop. [73] Despite a higher incidence of pancreatic fistula, and the subsequent increased morbidity and hospital stay, segmental pancreatectomy is a safe and adequate operation for selected patients with centrally placed benign or low-malignant-potential lesions of the pancreas. [71],[74]

Laparoscopic pancreatic resections

Gagner [75] has been credited with performing the first laparoscopic Whipple's operation. Since then, a few papers have appeared from different centers describing their experience with this procedure. [76],[77] These papers suggest that it is technically possible to perform such a demanding operation laparoscopically. However, the morbidity of the Whipple's operation is not related to the length of the abdominal incision but to the extensive nature of the actual intra-abdominal surgery. At present there is no worthwhile evidence to suggest that laparoscopic Whipple's is better than open surgery. This procedure may be performed by highly trained surgeons, in high-volume dedicated centers, and that too within the context of good clinical trials.

Laparoscopic surgery is ideally suited for those procedures which otherwise require a large abdominal incision to access and remove a small organ or tumor. Therefore, compared to PD, the scenario with laparoscopic DP is somewhat different. Increasing evidence has documented benefits of laparoscopy over open surgery in the management of small benign tumors of the pancreatic body and tail, eg, cystadenomas, insulinomas, gastrinomas, etc. [78] Laparoscopic DP or enucleation of such tumors is a safe procedure in experienced hands, with comparable morbidity and mortality. [78],[79] In summary, with regard to laparoscopic PD, feasibility should not be confused with benefit. [80] On the other hand, laparoscopic DP may well provide a distinct advantage over open surgery in the near future in highly selected small tumors of the body and tail. However, training surgeons for these complex procedures has to be undertaken in high-volume centers of pancreatic surgery.

 
 > References Top

1.Wagner M, Redaelli C, Lietz M, Seiler CA, Friess H, Buchler MW. Curative resection is the single most important factor determining outcome in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg 2004;91:586-94.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Smeenk HG, Tran TC, Erdmann J, van Eijck, Jeekel J. Survival after surgical management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Does curative and radical surgery truly exist? Langenbecks Arch Surg 2005;390:94-103.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Shrikhande SV, Barreto SG, Shukla PJ. Pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: The impact of a standardized technique of pancreaticojejunostomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2008;393:87-91.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Traverso LW, Longmire WP, Jr. Preservation of the pylorus in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1978;146:959-62.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Grace PA, Pitt HA, Longmire WP. Pylorus preserving pancreatoduodenectomy: An overview. Br J Surg 1990;77:968-74.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.Tran KT, Smeenk HG, van Eijck CH, Kazemier G, Hop WC, Greve JW, et al . Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy versus standard Whipple procedure: A prospective, randomized, multicenter analysis of 170 patients with pancreatic and periampullary tumors. Ann Surg 2004;240:738-45.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
7.Iqbal N, Lovegrove RE, Tilney HS, Abraham AT, Bhattacharya S,Tekkis PP, et al . A comparison of pancreaticoduodenectomy with pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: A meta-analysis of 2822 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008 Jan 31; [Epub ahead of print].  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.American gastroenterological association medical position statement: epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Gastroenterology 1999;117:1463-84.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Balachandran P, Sikora SS, Raghavendra Rao RV, Kumar A, Saxena R, Kapoor VK. Haemorrhagic complications of pancreaticoduodenectomy. ANZ J Surg 2004;74:945-50.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
10.Sakorafas GH, Friess H, Balsiger BM, Büchler MW, Sarr MG. Problems of reconstruction during pancreatoduodenectomy. Dig Surg 2001;18:363-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Hamanaka Y, Nishihara K, Hamasaki T, Kawabata A, Yamamoto S, Tsurumi M, et al . Pancreatic juice output after pancreatoduodenectomy in relation to pancreatic consistency, duct size and leakage. Surgery 1996;119:281-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Maher MM, Sauter PK, Zahurak ML, Talamini MA, et al . A prospective randomized trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 1995;222:580-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
13.Bassi C, Falconi M, Molinari E, Salvia R, Butturini G, Sartori N, et al . Reconstruction by pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy following pancreatectomy: Results of a comparative study. Ann Surg 2005;242:767-73.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
14.Duffas JP, Suc B, Msika S, Fourtanier G, Muscari F, Hay JM, et al . A controlled randomized multicenter trial pancreatogastrostomy or pancreatojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 2005;189:720-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
15.Takano S, Ito Y, Watanabe Y, Yokoyama T, Kubota N, Iwai S. Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy in reconstruction following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 2000;87:423-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
16.Oussoultzoglou E, Bachellier P, Bigourdan JM, Weber JC, Nakano H, Jaeck D. Pancreaticogastrostomy decreased relaparotomy caused by pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy compared with pancreaticojejunostomy. Arch Surg 2004;139:327-35.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
17.McKay A, Mackenzie S, Sutherland FR, Bathe OF, Doig C, Dort J, et al . Meta-analysis of pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 2006;93:929-36.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
18.Wente MN, Shrikhande SV, Muller MW, Diener MK, Seiler CM, Friess H, et al . Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg 2007;193:171-83.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Shrikhande SV, Qureshi SS, Rajneesh N, Shukla PJ. Pancreatic anastomoses after pancreaticoduodenectomy: Do we need further studies? World J Surg 2005;29:1642-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
20.Wada K, Traverso LW. Pancreatic anastomotic leak after the Whipple procedure is reduced using the surgical microscope. Surgery 2006;139:735-42.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
21.Roder JD, Stein HJ, B φttcher KA, Busch R, Heidecke CD, Siewert JR. Stented versus nonstented pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy: A prospective study. Ann Surg 1999;229:41-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Yoshimi F, Ono H, Asato Y, Ohta T, Koizumi S, Amemiya R, et al . Internal stenting of the hepaticojejunostomy and pancreaticojejunostomy in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy to promote earlier discharge from hospital. Surg Today 1996;26:665-7.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Poon RT, Fan ST, Lo CM, Ng KK, Yuen WK, Yeung C, et al . External drainage of pancreatic duct with a stent to reduce leakage rate of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 2007;246:425-33.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
24.Imaizumi T, Harada N, Hatori T, Fukuda A, Takasaki K. Stenting is unnecessary in duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy even in the normal pancreas. Pancreatology 2002;2:116-21.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]    
25.Shyr YM, Chen TH, Su CH, Wu CW, Lui WY. Non-stented pancreaticogastrostomy for 111 patients undergoing pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 2005;52:253-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]    
26.Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, Chang DC, Riall TS, Schulick RD, et al . Does pancreatic duct stenting decrease the rate of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized trial. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10:1280-90.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.Büchler M, Friess H, Klempa I, Hermanek P, Sulkowski U, Becker H, et al . Role of octreotide in the prevention of postoperative complications following pancreatic resection. Am J Surg 1992;163:125-131.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.Pederzoli P, Bassi C, Falconi M, Camboni MG; Italian Study Group. Efficacy of octreotide in the prevention of complications of elective pancreatic surgery. Br J Surg 1994;81:265-9.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.Montorsi M, Zago M, Mosca F, Capussotti L, Zotti E, Ribotta G, et al . Efficacy of octreotide in the prevention of pancreatic fistula after elective pancreatic resections: A prospective, controlled, randomized clinical trial. Surgery 1995;117:26-31.  Back to cited text no. 29
[PUBMED]    
30.Friess H, Beger HG, Sulkowski U, Becker H, Hofbauer B, Dennler HJ, et al . Randomized controlled multicentre study of the prevention of complications by octreotide in patients undergoing surgery for chronic pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1995;82:1270-3.  Back to cited text no. 30
[PUBMED]    
31.Gouillat C, Chipponi J, Baulieux J, Partensky C, Saric J, Gayet B. Randomized controlled multicentre trial of somatostatin infusion after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 2001;88:1456-62.  Back to cited text no. 31
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
32.Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD, Sauter PK, Coleman J, Sohn TA, et al . Does prophylactic octreotide decrease the rates of pancreatic fistula and other complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized placebo-controlled trial. Ann Surg 2000;232:419-29.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.Lowy AM, Lee JE, Pisters PW, Davidson BS, Fenoglio CJ, Stanford P, et al . Prospective, randomized trial of octreotide to prevent pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignant disease. Ann Surg 1997;226:632-41.  Back to cited text no. 33
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
34.Poon RT, Lo SH, Fong D, Fan ST, Wong J. Prevention of pancreatic anastomotic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 2002;183:42-52  Back to cited text no. 34
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
35.Stojadinovic A, Brooks A, Hoos A, Jaques DP, Conlon KC, Brennan MF. An evidence-based approach to the surgical management of resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196:954-64.  Back to cited text no. 35
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
36.Vanounou T, Pratt WB, Callery MP, Vollmer CM Jr. Selective administration of prophylactic octreotide during pancreaticoduodenectomy: A clinical and cost-benefit analysis in low- and high-risk glands. J Am Coll Surg 200;205:546-57.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.Fortner JG, Kim DK, Cubilla A, Turnbull A, Pahnke LD, Shils ME. Regional pancreatectomy: En bloc pancreatic, portal vein and lymph node resection. Ann Surg 1977;186:42-50.  Back to cited text no. 37
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
38.Sarr MG, Behrns KE, van Heerden JA. Total pancreatectomy: An objective analysis of its use in pancreatic cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 1993;40:418-21.  Back to cited text no. 38
[PUBMED]    
39.Karpoff HM, Klimstra DS, Brennan MF, Conlon KC. Results of total pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Arch Surg 2001;136:44-7.  Back to cited text no. 39
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
40.Ihse I, Anderson H, Andrιn-Sandberg. Total pancreatectomy for cancer of the pancreas: Is it appropriate? World J Surg 1996;20:288-94.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.Reddy SK, Tyler DS, Pappas TN, Clary BM. Extended resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Oncologist 2007;12:654-63.  Back to cited text no. 41
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
42.Pedrazzoli S, DiCarlo V, Dionigi R, Mosca F, Pederzoli P, Pasquali C, et al . Standard versus extended lymphadenectomy associated with pancreatoduodenectomy in the surgical treatment of adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas: A multicenter, prospective, randomized study. Ann Surg 1998;228:508-17.  Back to cited text no. 42
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
43.Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD, Sohn TA, Campbell KA, Sauter PK, et al . Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without distal gastrectomy and extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma, part 2: Randomized controlled trial evaluating survival, morbidity and mortality. Ann Surg 2002;236:355-66.  Back to cited text no. 43
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
44.Nimura Y, Nagino M, Kato H, Miyagawa S, Yamaguchi A, Kinoshita T, et al . Regional versus extended lymph node dissection in radical pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial. HPB 2004;6:2.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.Farnell MB, Pearson RK, Sarr MG, DiMagno EP, Burgart LJ, Dahl TR, et al . A prospective randomized trial comparing standard pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatoduodenectomy with extended lymphadenectomy in resectable pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. Surgery 2005;138:618-30.  Back to cited text no. 45
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
46.Farnell MB, Aranha GV, Nimura Y, Michelassi F. The role of extended lymphadenectomy for adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas: Strength of the evidence. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:651-6.  Back to cited text no. 46
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
47.Michalski CW, Kleeff J, Wente MN, Diener MK, Büchler MW, Friess H. Systematic review and meta-analysis of standard and extended lymphadenectomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 2007;94:265-73.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.Fuhrman GM, Leach SD, Staley CA, Cusack JC, Charnsangavej C, Cleary KR, et al . Rationale for en bloc vein resection in the treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma adherent to the superior mesenteric-portal vein confluence. Ann Surg 1996;223:154-62.  Back to cited text no. 48
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
49.Hartel M, Niedergethmann M, Farag-Soliman M, Sturm JW, Richter A, Trede M, et al . Benefit of venous resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head. Eur J Surg 2002;168:707-12.  Back to cited text no. 49
[PUBMED]    
50.Siriwardana HP, Siriwardena AK. Systematic review of outcome of synchronous portal-superior mesenteric vein resection during pancreatectomy for cancer. Br J Surg 2006;93:662-73.  Back to cited text no. 50
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
51.Hartel M, Wente MN, Di Sebastiano P, Friess H, Büchler MW. The role of extended resection in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Is there good evidence-based justification? Pancreatology 2004;4:561-6.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.Yeo CJ, Barry MK, Sauter PK, Sostre S, Lillemoe KD, Pitt HA, et al . Erythromycin accelerates gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Surg 1993;218:229-38.  Back to cited text no. 52
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
53.Horstmann O, Markus PM, Ghadimi MB, Becker H. Pylorus preservation has no impact on delayed gastric emptying after pancreatic head resection. Pancreas 2004;28:69-74.  Back to cited text no. 53
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
54.Paraskevas KI, Avgerinos C, Manes C, Lytras D, Dervenis C. Delayed gastric emptying is associated with pylorus-preserving but not classical Whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy: A review of the literature and critical reappraisal of the implicated pathomechanism. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:5951-8.  Back to cited text no. 54
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
55.Wayne MG, Jorge IA, Cooperman AM. Alternative reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Surg Oncol. 2008;6:9.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.Fischer CP, Hong JC. Method of pyloric reconstruction and impact upon delayed gastric emptying and hospital stay after pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10:215-9.  Back to cited text no. 56
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
57.Hartel M, Wente MN, Hinz U, Kleeff J, Wagner M, Müller MW, et al . Effect of antecolic reconstruction on delayed gastric emptying after the pylorus-preserving Whipple procedure. Arch Surg 2005;140:1094-9.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.Tani M, Terasawa H, Kawai M, Ina S, Hirono S, Uchiyama K, et al . Improvement of delayed gastric emptying in pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: Results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Surg 2006;243:316-20.  Back to cited text no. 58
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
59.Rieger R, Wayand W. Pancreatoduodenectomy with stapling devices. Br J Surg 1993;80:1183.  Back to cited text no. 59
[PUBMED]    
60.Obertop H. Improving the technique of performing a pancreaticoenterostomy and pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 1996;182:557-8.  Back to cited text no. 60
[PUBMED]    
61.Kleeff J, Friess H, Büchler MW. Dissection of the uncinate process and pancreatic head behind the portal vein using endovascular staplers. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007;14:480-3.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.Povoski SP. Novel applications of Endo GIA linear staplers during pancreaticoduodenectomy and total pancreatectomy. Am J Surg 2001;182:77-80  Back to cited text no. 62
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
63.Ridolfini MP, Alfieri S, Gourgiotis S, Di Miceli D, Rotondi F, Quero G, et al . Risk factors associated with pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy: Which technique of pancreatic stump closure is more beneficial? World J Gastroenterol 2007;13:5096-100.  Back to cited text no. 63
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
64.Knaebel HP, Diener MK, Wente MN, Büchler MW, Seiler CM. Systematic review and meta-analysis of technique for closure of the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg 2005;92:539-46.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.Kleeff J, Diener MK, Z'graggen K, Hinz U, Wagner M, Bachmann J, et al . Distal pancreatectomy: Risk factors for surgical failure in 302 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 2007;245:573-82.  Back to cited text no. 65
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
66.Kimura W, Inoue T, Futakawa N, Shinkai H, Han I, Muto T. Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein. Surgery 1996;120:885-90.  Back to cited text no. 66
[PUBMED]    
67.Cooper MJ, Williamson RC. Splenectomy: Indications, hazards and alternatives. Br J Surg 1984;71:173-80.  Back to cited text no. 67
[PUBMED]    
68.Schwarz RE, Harrison LE, Conlon KC, Klimstra DS, Brennan MF. The impact of splenectomy on outcomes after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 1999;188:516-21.  Back to cited text no. 68
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
69.Sledzianowski JF, Duffas JP, Muscari F, Suc B, Fourtanier F. Risk factors for mortality and intra-abdominal morbidity after distal pancreatectomy. Surgery 2005;137:180-5.  Back to cited text no. 69
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
70.Koukoutsis I, Tamijmarane A, Bellagamba R, Bramhall S, Buckels J, Mirza D. The impact of splenectomy on outcomes after distal and total pancreatectomy. World J Surg Oncol 2007;5:61.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.Müller MW, Friess H, Kleeff J, Hinz U, Wente MN, Paramythiotis D, et al . Middle segmental pancreatic resection: An option to treat benign pancreatic body lesions. Ann Surg 2006;244:909-20.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.Talamini MA, Moesinger R, Yeo CJ, Poulose B, Hruban RH, Cameron JL, et al . Cystadenomas of the pancreas: Is enucleation an adequate operation? Ann Surg 1998;227:896-903.  Back to cited text no. 72
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
73.Iacono C, Bortolasi L, Facci E, Nifosμ F, Pachera S, Ruzzenente A, et al . The Dagradi-Serio-Iacono operation central pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2007;11:364-76.  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.Sperti C, Pasquali C, Ferronato A, Pedrazzoli S. Median pancreatectomy for tumors of the neck and body of the pancreas. J Am Coll Surg 2000;190:711-6.  Back to cited text no. 74
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
75.Gagner M, Pomp A. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 1994;8:408-10.  Back to cited text no. 75
[PUBMED]    
76.Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Mahajna A. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign and malignant diseases. Surg Endosc 2006;20:1045-50.  Back to cited text no. 76
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
77.Palanivelu C, Jani K, Senthilnathan P, Parthasarathi R, Rajapandian S, Madhankumar MV. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: Technique and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 2007;205:222-30.  Back to cited text no. 77
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
78.Ammori BJ, Baghdadi S. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: The new frontier? Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2006;8:132-42.  Back to cited text no. 78
[PUBMED]    
79.Aluka KJ, Long C, Rickford MS, Turner PL, McKenna SJ, Fullum TM. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenic preservation for serous cystadenoma: A case report and literature review. Surg Innov 2006;13:94-101.  Back to cited text no. 79
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
80.Shrikhande SV, Barreto SG, Shukla PJ. Laparoscopy in pancreatic tumors. J Min Access Surg 2007;3:47-51.  Back to cited text no. 80
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]


This article has been cited by
1 A Cost Analysis of Somatostatin use in the Prevention of Pancreatic Fistula after Pancreatectomy
R. Anderson,E. Dunki-Jacobs,N. Burnett,C. Scoggins,K. McMasters,R. C. G. Martin
World Journal of Surgery. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Clinical evaluation of somatostatin use in pancreatic resections: Clinical efficacy or limited benefit?
Ryan James Anderson,Erik Dunki-Jacobs,Glenda G. Callender,Nick Burnett,Charles R. Scoggins,Kelly M. McMasters,Robert C.G. Martin
Surgery. 2013; 154(4): 755
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 A phase I/II study of gemcitabine-concurrent proton radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer without distant metastasis
Kazuki Terashima,Yusuke Demizu,Naoki Hashimoto,Dongcun Jin,Masayuki Mima,Osamu Fujii,Yasue Niwa,Kento Takatori,Naoto Kitajima,Sachiyo Sirakawa,Ku Yonson,Yoshio Hishikawa,Mitsuyuki Abe,Ryohei Sasaki,Kazuro Sugimura,Masao Murakami
Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2012; 103(1): 25
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Preoperative assessment and optimization in periampullary and pancreatic cancer
Myatra, S., Divatia, J.V., Jibhkate, B., Barreto, G.S., Shrikhande, S.V.
Indian Journal of Cancer. 2011; 48(1): 86-93
[Pubmed]
5 The vascular stapler in uncinate process division during pancreaticoduodenectomy: Technical considerations and results
DæSouza, M.A., Singh, K., Hawaldar, R.V., Shukla, P.J., Shrikhande, S.V.
Digestive Surgery. 2010; 27(3): 175-181
[Pubmed]
6 Recommendations for diagnosis, staging and treatment of pancreatic cancer (Part II) | [Recomendaciones para el diagnóstico, estadificación y tratamiento del cáncer de páncreas (parte II)]
Navarro, S., Vaquero, E., Maurel, J., Bombí, J.A., De Juan, C., Feliu, J., Fernández Cruz, L., (...), Sabater, L.
Medicina Clinica. 2010; 134(15): 692-702
[Pubmed]
7 Recomendaciones para el diagnóstico, estadificación y tratamiento del cáncer de páncreas (parte ii)
Medicina Clínica. 2010; 134(15): 692
[VIEW] | [DOI]
8 Pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy: Evolving definitions, preventive strategies and modern management
Shrikhande, S.V. and AD’Souza, M.
World J Gastroenterol. 2008; 14(38): 5789-5796
[Pubmed]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

  >Abstract>Materials and Me...>Pancreatic Anast...>Distal Pancreate...>Article Figures>Article Tables
  In this article
>References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed7286    
    Printed149    
    Emailed3    
    PDF Downloaded428    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 8    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]