metricas
covid
Buscar en
Cirugía Española (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Cirugía Española (English Edition) Surgical treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma by cephalic duodenopancreatectom...
Journal Information
Vol. 88. Issue 5.
Pages 299-307 (November 2010)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 88. Issue 5.
Pages 299-307 (November 2010)
Full text access
Surgical treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma by cephalic duodenopancreatectomy (Part 1). Post-surgical complications in 204 cases in a reference hospital
Tratamiento quirúrgico del adenocarcinoma pancreático mediante duodenopancreatectomía cefálica (Parte 1). Complicaciones postoperatorias en 204 casos en un centro de referencia
Visits
2109
Juli Busquetsa,
Corresponding author
jbusquets@bellvitgehospital.cat

Corresponding author.
, Juan Fabregata, Rosa Jorbaa, Núria Peláeza, Francisco García-Borobiaa, Cristina Masuetb, Carlos Vallsc, Laura Martínez-Carniceroc, Laura Lladóa, Jaume Torrasaa
a Servicio de Cirugía General y Digestiva, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
b Servicio de Medicina Preventiva, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
c Servicio Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Abstract
Introduction

Cephalic duodenopancreatectomy (CDP) is the treatment of choice in cancer of the head of the pancreas. However, it continues to have a high post-surgical morbidity and mortality.

The aim of this article is to define variables that influence post-surgical morbidity and mortality after cephalic duodenopancreatectomy due to pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) cancer of the head of the pancreas (CHP).

Material and methods

The variables were prospectively collected form patients operated on between 1991 and 2007, in order to investigate the factors of higher morbidity.

Results

A total of 204 patients had been intervened due to PA, of whom 57 were older than 70 years. Of these patients, 119 had a CDP, 11 extended lymphadectomy, 66 with pyloric conservation, and 8 with extension to total pancreatectomy due to involvement of the section margin. Portal or mesenteric vein resection was included in 35 cases. Post-surgical complications were detected in 45% of cases, the most frequent being: slow gastric emptying (20%), surgical wound infection (17%), pancreatic fistula (10%), and serious medical complications (8%). Further surgery was required in 13%, and the over post-surgical mortality was 7%. A patient age greater than 70 years, post-surgical haemoperitoneum, gastroenteric dehiscence, and the presence of medical complications were post-surgical mortality risk factors in the multivariate analysis. Pancreatic fistula was not a factor associated with post-surgical mortality.

Conclusions

Cephalic duodenopancreatectomy is a safe technique but with a considerable morbidity. Patients over 70 years of age must be carefully selected before considering surgery. Serious medical complications must be treated aggressively to avoid an unfavourable progression.

Keywords:
Carcinoma of the pancreas
Pancreatic resection surgery
Resumen
Introducción

La duodenopancreatectomía cefálica (DPC) es el tratamiento de elección en el adenocarcinoma de cabeza de páncreas. Sin embargo, sigue presentando elevada morbilidad y mortalidad posquirúrgica.

El objetivo de este estudio es definir las variables que influyen en la morbilidad y mortalidad postoperatoria tras la duodenopancreatectomía cefálica por adenocarcinoma de páncreas (ADCP).

Material y métodos

Se han recogido prospectivamente las variables de los pacientes intervenidos entre 1991–2007, con el fin de investigar los factores asociados a una mayor morbilidad.

Resultados

Se han intervenido 204 pacientes por ADCP, de ellos 57 eran mayores de 70 años. Se han realizado 119 DPC, 11 con linfadenectomía extendida, 66 DPC con preservación pilórica y 8 con ampliación a pancreatectomía total por afectación del margen de sección. Treinta y cinco casos asociaron resección venosa portal o mesentérica. Se han detectado complicaciones postquirúrgicas en el 45% de casos, las más frecuentes: vaciado gástrico lento (20%), infección incisional (17%), fístula pancreática (10%), y complicaciones médicas graves (8%). El 13% fue reintervenido y la mortalidad postoperatoria global fue del 7%. La edad del paciente superior a 70 años, el hemoperitoneo postoperatorio, la dehiscencia gastroentérica, y la presencia de complicaciones médicas graves fueron factores de riesgo de mortalidad postquirúrgica en el estudio multivariante. La fístula pancreática no fue un factor relacionado con la mortalidad posquirúrgica.

Conclusiones

La duodenopancreatectomía cefálica es una técnica segura pero con morbilidad considerable. Los pacientes con edad superior a 70 años deben ser seleccionados cuidadosamente antes de intervenirlos. Las complicaciones médicas graves deben tratarse de forma agresiva para evitar una evolución desfavorable.

Palabras clave:
Adenocarcinoma páncreas
Cirugía resectiva páncreas
Full text is only aviable in PDF
References
[1.]
J.Ht Balcom, D.W. Rattner, A.L. Warshaw, Y. Chang, C. Fernandez-del Castillo.
Ten-year experience with 733 pancreatic resections: changing indications, older patients, and decreasing length of hospitalization.
Arch Surg, 136 (2001), pp. 391-398
[2.]
T.J. Howard, J.E. Krug, J. Yu, N.J. Zyromski, C.M. Schmidt, L.E. Jacobson, et al.
A margin-negative R0 resection accomplished with minimal postoperative complications is the surgeon's contribution to long-term survival in pancreatic cancer.
J Gastrointest Surg, 10 (2006), pp. 1338-1345
[3.]
M.L. DeOliveira, J.M. Winter, M. Schafer, S.C. Cunningham, J.L. Cameron, C.J. Yeo, et al.
Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: A novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.
[4.]
J.M. Winter, J.L. Cameron, K.A. Campbell, M.A. Arnold, D.C. Chang, J. Coleman, et al.
1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: A single-institution experience.
J Gastrointest Surg, 10 (2006), pp. 1199-1210
[5.]
C. Valls.
Obstructive Jaundice: diagnostic and therapeutic management.
J Radiol, 87 (2006), pp. 460-478
[6.]
M.E. Sewnath, T.M. Karsten, M.H. Prins, E.J. Rauws, H. Obertop, D.J. Gouma.
A meta-analysis on the efficacy of preoperative biliary drainage for tumors causing obstructive jaundice.
Ann Surg, 236 (2002), pp. 17-27
[7.]
C. Valls, E. Andia, A. Sánchez, J. Fabregat, O. Pozuelo, J.C. Quintero, et al.
Dual-phase helical CT of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: assessment of resectability before surgery.
Am J Roentgenol, 178 (2002), pp. 821-826
[8.]
A. Nakao, A. Harada, T. Nonami, T. Kaneko, S. Inoue, H. Takagi.
Clinical significance of portal invasion by pancreatic head carcinoma.
Surgery, 117 (1995), pp. 50-55
[9.]
O. Ishikawa, H. Ohigashi, S. Imaoka, H. Furukawa, Y. Sasaki, M. Fujita, et al.
Preoperative indications for extended pancreatectomy for locally advanced pancreas cancer involving the portal vein.
Ann Surg, 215 (1992), pp. 231-236
[10.]
M. Wagner, C. Redaelli, M. Lietz, C.A. Seiler, H. Friess, M.W. Buchler.
Curative resection is the single most important factor determining outcome in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Br J Surg, 91 (2004), pp. 586-594
[11.]
K.D. Lillemoe, H.A. Pitt.
Palliation. Surgical and otherwise.
[12.]
T.P. Yeo, R.H. Hruban, S.D. Leach, R.E. Wilentz, T.A. Sohn, S.E. Kern, et al.
Pancreatic cancer.
Curr Probl Cancer, 26 (2002), pp. 176-275
[13.]
S. Li, G.Y. Zhuang, Y.Q. Pei, C.Y. Li, J.L. Wang, W. Ding, et al.
Extended local resection for treatment of periampullary carcinoma of vater.
Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int, 3 (2004), pp. 303-306
[14.]
P. McCulloch, M.E. Nita, H. Kazi, J. Gama-Rodrigues.
Extended versus limited lymph nodes dissection technique for adenocarcinoma of the stomach.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 4 (2004),
[15.]
O. Ishikawa, H. Ohigashi, Y. Sasaki, T. Kabuto, H. Furukawa, S. Nakamori, et al.
Practical grouping of positive lymph nodes in pancreatic head cancer treated by an extended pancreatectomy.
Surgery, 121 (1997), pp. 244-249
[16.]
C.J. Yeo, J.L. Cameron, K.D. Lillemoe, T.A. Sohn, K.A. Campbell, P.K. Sauter, 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.
[17.]
K.T. Tran, H.G. Smeenk, C.H. Van Eijck, G. Kazemier, W.C. Hop, J.W. Greve, et al.
Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy versus standard Whipple procedure: a prospective, randomized, multicenter analysis of 170 patients with pancreatic and periampullary tumors.
Ann Surg, 240 (2004), pp. 738-745
[18.]
T.C. Nguyen, T.A. Sohn, J.L. Cameron, K.D. Lillemoe, K.A. Campbell, J. Coleman, et al.
Standard vs. radical pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma: a prospective, randomized trial evaluating quality of life in pancreaticoduodenectomy survivors.
J Gastrointest Surg, 7 (2003), pp. 1-9
[19.]
A. Nakeeb, K.D. Lillemoe, J.L. Grosfeld.
Surgical techniques for pancreatic cancer.
Minerva Chir, 59 (2004), pp. 151-163
[20.]
S. Hirano, S. Kondo, Y. Ambo, E. Tanaka, T. Morikawa, S. Okushiba, et al.
Outcome of duodenum-preserving resection of the head of the pancreas for intraductal papillary-mucinous neoplasm.
Dig Surg, 21 (2004), pp. 242-245
[21.]
Y.M. Yang, X.D. Tian, Y. Zhuang, W.M. Wang, Y.L. Wan, Y.T. Huang.
Risk factors of pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
World J Gastroenterol, 11 (2005), pp. 2456-2461
[22.]
C. Bassi, C. Dervenis, G. Butturini, A. Fingerhut, C. Yeo, J. Izbicki, et al.
Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study gro*up (ISGPF) definition.
[23.]
M.W. Buchler, C. Bassi, A. Fingerhut, I. Klempa.
Does prophylactic octreotide decrease the rates of pancreatic fistula and other complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy?.
Ann Surg, 234 (2001), pp. 262-263
[24.]
M.W. Buchler, H. Friess.
Evidence forward, drainage on retreat: still we ignore and drain!?.
[25.]
A.S. Keats.
The ASA classification of physical status−a recapitulation.
Anesthesiology, 49 (1978), pp. 233-236
[26.]
A. Soriano-Izquierdo, A. Castells, M. Pellise, C. Ayuso, J.R. Ayuso, T.M. De Caralt, et al.
Hospital registry of pancreatic tumors. Experience of the Hospital Clinic in Barcelona (Spain).
Gastroenterol Hepatol, 27 (2004), pp. 250-255
[27.]
J. Boadas, J. Balart, G. Capella, F. Lluis, A. Farre.
Survival of cancer of the pancreas. Bases for new strategies in diagnosis and therapy.
Rev Esp Enferm Dig, 92 (2000), pp. 316-325
[28.]
L. Fernández-Cruz, R. Cosa, L. Blanco, S. Levi, M.A. López-Boado, S. Navarro.
Curative laparoscopic resection for pancreatic neoplasms: a critical analysis from a single institution.
J Gastrointest Surg, 11 (2007), pp. 1607-1621
[29.]
L. Sabater, J. Calvete, L. Aparisi, R. Cánovas, E. Muñoz, R. Añón, et al.
Neoplasias de páncreas y periampulares: morbimortalidad, resultados funcionales y supervivencia a largo plazo.
Cir Esp, 3 (2009), pp. 159-166
[30.]
M. Tani, M. Kawai, S. Hirono, S. Ina, M. Miyazawa, R. Nishioka, et al.
A pancreaticoduodenectomy is acceptable for periampullary tumors in the elderly, even in patients over 80 years of age.
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg, 16 (2009), pp. 675-680
[31.]
M. Ouaissi, I. Sielezneff, N. Pirro, A. Merad, A. Loundou, J.B. Chaix, et al.
Pancreatic cancer and pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patient: morbidity and mortality are increased. Is it the real life?.
Hepatogastroenterology, 55 (2008), pp. 2242-2246
[32.]
J. Boldt, M. Ducke, B. Kumle, M. Papsdorf, E.L. Zurmeyer.
Influence of different volume replacement strategies on inflammation and endothelial activation in the elderly undergoing major abdominal surgery.
Intensive Care Med, 30 (2004), pp. 416-422
[33.]
C.J. Yeo, J.L. Cameron, M.M. Maher, P.K. Sauter, M.L. Zahurak, M.A. Talamini, et al.
A prospective randomized trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Ann Surg, 222 (1995), pp. 580-588
[34.]
S. Ohwada, Y. Satoh, S. Kawate, T. Yamada, O. Kawamura, T. Koyama, et al.
Low-dose erythromycin reduces delayed gastric emptying improves gastric motility after Billroth I pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Ann Surg, 234 (2001), pp. 668-674
[35.]
O. Kollmar, M.R. Moussavian, S. Richter, P. De Roi, C.A. Maurer, M.K. Schilling.
Prophylactic octreotide and delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy: results of a prospective randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial.
Eur J Surg Oncol, 34 (2008), pp. 868-875
[36.]
Q. Zeng, Q. Zhang, S. Han, Z. Yu, M. Zheng, M. Zhou, et al.
Efficacy of somatostatin and its analogues in prevention of postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
[37.]
Y.S. Shan, E.D. Sy, M.L. Tsai, L.Y. Tang, P.S. Li, P.W. Lin.
Effects of somatostatin prophylaxis after pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: increased delayed gastric emptying and reduced plasma motilin.
World J Surg, 29 (2005), pp. 1319-1324
[38.]
K.I. Paraskevas, C. Avgerinos, C. Manes, D. Lytras, C. Dervenis.
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, 12 (2006), pp. 5951-5958
[39.]
T.S. Riall, J.L. Cameron, K.D. Lillemoe, K.A. Campbell, P.K. Sauter, J. Coleman, et al.
Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without distal gastrectomy and extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma−part 3: update on 5-year survival.
J Gastrointest Surg, 9 (2005), pp. 1191-1204
[40.]
M. Tani, H. Terasawa, M. Kawai, S. Ina, S. Hirono, K. Uchiyama, et al.
Improvement of delayed gastric emptying in pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
[41.]
J.M. Winter, J.L. Cameron, C.J. Yeo, K.D. Lillemoe, K.A. Campbell, R.D. Schulick.
Duodenojejunostomy leaks after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
J Gastrointest Surg, 12 (2008), pp. 263-269
[42.]
E. Molinari, C. Bassi, R. Salvia, G. Butturini, S. Crippa, G. Talamini, et al.
Amylase value in drains after pancreatic resection as predictive factor of postoperative pancreatic fistula: results of a prospective study in 137 patients.
Ann Surg, 246 (2007), pp. 281-287
[43.]
T.A. Sohn, C.J. Yeo, J.L. Cameron, J.F. Geschwind, S.E. Mitchell, A.C. Venbrux, et al.
Pancreaticoduodenectomy: role of interventional radiologists in managing patients and complications.
J Gastrointest Surg, 7 (2003), pp. 209-219
[44.]
T. Aimoto, E. Uchida, Y. Nakamura, A. Matsushita, A. Katsuno, K. Chou, et al.
Efficacy of a Blake drainR on pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Hepatogastroenterology, 55 (2008), pp. 1796-1800
[45.]
J.W. Lin, J.L. Cameron, C.J. Yeo, T.S. Riall, K.D. Lillemoe.
Risk factors and outcomes in postpancreaticoduodenectomy pancreaticocutaneous fistula.
J Gastrointest Surg, 8 (2004), pp. 951-959
[46.]
L. Nordback, M. Parviainen, S. Raty, H. Kuivanen, J. Sand.
Resection of the head of the pancreas in Finland: effects of hospital and surgeon on short-term and long-term results.
Scand J Gastroenterol, 37 (2002), pp. 1454-1460
[47.]
Guidelines for the management of patients with pancreatic cancer periampullary and ampullary carcinomas.
[48.]
NCCN practice guidelines for pancreatic cancer.
Oncology (Williston Park), 11 (1997), pp. 41-55
[49.]
E.P. DiMagno, H.A. Reber, M.A. Tempero, American Gastroenterological Association.
AGA technical review on the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Gastroenterology, 117 (1999), pp. 1464-1484
Copyright © 2010. Asociación Española de Cirujanos
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos