Pancreatoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric vein resection and non-reconstruction for pancreatic head cancer paying particular attention to hemodynamics.

PURPOSE: Locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with an unreconstructible superior mesenteric vein (SMV) invasion is one of the criteria of unresectability in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Advances in chemotherapy have improved downstaging and conversion surgery outcomes, thereby broadening surgical options for locally advanced PDAC. However, operations for PDAC with an unreconstructible SMV is less well-documented. If the collateral route is well-developed and can be preserved or reconstructed, SMV resection can be performed without reconstruction. In this paper, we detail our surgical technique and the outcomes for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy with SMV resection and non-reconstruction (PD-SMVR-NR). METHODS: All consecutive patients with pancreatic head cancer who underwent PD at Juntendo University Hospital, Japan, between January 2019 and December 2022 were evaluated from a prospectively maintained preoperative database. Demographic data, clinical history, operative record, morbidity, mortality, and pathologic data were reviewed. RESULTS: Over four years at our Institute, 161 patients with pancreatic head cancer underwent PD, and 86 of these patients underwent PD with portal vein (PV) or SMV resection. There were three patients who underwent PD-SMVR-NR. Each patient had well-developed collateral vessels bypassing the obstructed segment of the SMV. All three patients had no hospital mortality with acceptable complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 2). Two patients achieved R0 resection. CONCLUSION: By understanding the hemodynamics of venous flow and preserving collateral vessels, especially the superior right colic vein arcade and porto-mesenterico-splenic confluence, pancreatoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric vein resection and non-reconstruction can be performed safely.

Single-incision plus one port laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with major venous resection and reconstruction for pancreatic cancer with video recordings.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) with superior mesenteric/portal vein (SMV/PV) resection and reconstruction was the most technically challenging procedure and had been rarely reported. However, single-incision plus one-port LPD (SILPD +1) with SMV/PV resection and reconstruction has never been reported. In this study, we will demonstrate the feasibility, safety, key surgical procedure, and long-term outcomes for SILPD +1 with SMV/PV resection and reconstruction using video evidence. Two cases of SILPD +1 with SMV/PV wedge resection were carried out by the authors. There was no tumor recurrence during the one-year follow-up. It is worth noting that skilled laparoscopic technicians are necessary to safely complete the procedure with good short-term and long-term outcomes.

Pancreatectomy with En Bloc Superior Mesenteric Vein and All Its Tributaries Resection without PV/SMV Reconstruction for "Low" Locally Advanced Pancreatic Head Cancer.

The "vein definition" for locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (LA PDAC) assumes portal-to-superior mesenteric vein (PV/SMV) unreconstructability due to tumor involvement or occlusion. Radical pancreatectomies with SMV resection without PV/SMV reconstruction are scarcely discussed in the literature. Retrospective analysis of 19 radical pancreatectomies for "low" LA PDAC with SMV and all its tributaries resection without PV/SMV reconstruction has shown zero mortality; overall morbidity-56%; Dindo-Clavien-3-10.5%; R0-rate-82%; mean operative procedure time-355 ± 154 min; mean blood loss-330 ± 170 mL; delayed gastric emptying-25%; and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula-8%. In three cases, surgery was associated with superior mesenteric (n2) and common hepatic artery (n1) resection. Surgery was completed without vein reconstruction (n13) and with inferior mesenteric-to-splenic anastomosis (n6). There were no cases of liver, gastric, or intestinal ischemia. A specific complication of the SMV resection without reconstruction was 2-3 days-long intestinal edema (48%). Median overall survival was 25 months, and median progression-free survival was 18 months. All the relapses, except two, were distant. The possibility of successful SMV resection without PV/SMV reconstruction can be predicted before surgery by CT-based reconstructions. The mandatory anatomical conditions for the procedure were as follows: (1) preserved SMV-SV confluence; (2) occluded SMV for any reason (tumor or thrombus); (3) well-developed inferior mesenteric vein collaterals with dilated intestinal veins; (4) no right-sided vein collaterals; and (5) no varices in the upper abdomen. Conclusion: "Low" LA PDACs involving SMV with all its tributaries can be radically and safely resected in highly and specifically selected cases without PV/SMV reconstruction with an acceptable survival rate.

Robotic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy With Vein Resection and Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Objective: This study aimed to compare robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (PD-VR) based on the incidence of severe postoperative complications (SPC). Background: Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has been gaining momentum in recent years. Vein resection is frequently required in this operation, but no study has compared robotic and open PD-VR using a matched analysis. Methods: This was an intention-to-treat study designed to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic to open PD-VR (2011-2021) based on SPC. To achieve a power of 80% (noninferiority margin:10%; α error: 0.05; ß error: 0.20), a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis required 35 pairs. Results: Of the 151 patients with PD-VR (open = 115, robotic = 36), 35 procedures per group were compared. Elective conversion to open surgery was required in 1 patient with robotic PD-VR (2.9%). One patient in both groups experienced partial vein thrombosis. SPC occurred in 7 (20.0%) and 6 patients (17.1%) in the robotic and open PD-VR groups, respectively (P = 0.759; OR: 1.21 [0.36-4.04]). Three patients died after robotic PD-VR (8.6%) and none died after open PD-VR (P = 0.239). Robotic PD-VR was associated with longer operative time (611.1 ± 13.9 minutes vs 529.0 ± 13.0 minutes; P < 0.0001), more type 2 vein resection (28.6% vs 5.7%; P = 0.0234) and less type 3 vein resection (31.4% vs 71.4%; P = 0.0008), longer vein occlusion time (30 [25.3-78.3] minutes vs 15 [8-19.5] minutes; P = 0.0098), less blood loss (450 [200-750] mL vs 733 [500-1070.3] mL; P = 0.0075), and fewer blood transfusions (intraoperative: 14.3% vs 48.6%; P = 0.0041) (perioperative: 14.3% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0001). Conclusions: In this study, robotic PD-VR was noninferior to open PD-VR for SPC. Robotic and open PD-VR need to be compared in randomized controlled trials.

Surgical resection of double advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with multiple renal cell carcinoma associated with von Hippel-Lindau disease.

Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease, an autosomal dominant genetic disorder caused by a germline mutation, is associated with non-functional and slow-growing pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PNET) and kidney cancer. We describe the case of a 46 year-old man with a 35 mm mass in the pancreatic head causing stricture of the bile duct and main pancreatic duct, a 55 mm mass in the pancreatic tail causing obstruction of the splenic vein (SV), and multiple masses of > 36 mm on both kidneys. We performed a two-stage resection. First, a total pancreatectomy with superior mesenteric vein (SMV) resection and reconstruction and retroperitoneoscopic right partial nephrectomy (NP) for five lesions was performed, followed by retroperitoneoscopic left partial NP of the five lesions 6 months later. Postoperative histopathological examination revealed NET G2 in the pancreatic head with SMV invasion and somatostatin receptor type 2A (SSTR2A) positivity, NET G2 in the pancreatic tail showed SV invasion and negative SSTR2A, and multiple clear cell renal cell carcinomas (RCC) were also noted. Multiple liver recurrences occurred 22 months after primary surgery. The patient remains alive 41 months after primary surgery. Kidney cancer generally determines VHL prognosis; however, we experienced dual-advanced PNETs with a more defined prognosis than multiple RCC associated with VHL.

Subclavian vein epithelioid hemangioendothelioma: Multidisciplinary surgical approach.

Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is a rare primary vascular tumour, usually malignant. We present the case of a 60-year-old woman who presented with hoarseness of voice and a persistent cough. During evaluation, a left supraclavicular mass was discovered. Initial assessments revealed a 30-mm left supraclavicular mass. Computed tomography angiogram and venogram confirmed an enhancing mass arising directly from the proximal left subclavian vein. After discussion in the joint multidisciplinary team, it was decided to resect the tumour owing to its malignant potential. Histopathology after resection confirmed a completely excised EHE. EHE is a rare vascular sarcoma requiring a multidisciplinary approach. Its main challenge is its unpredictable behaviour.

Staging Computed Tomography Parameters Predict the Need for Vein Resection during Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Surgery-first approach is the current standard of care for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and a proportion of these cases will require venous resection. This study aimed to identify parameters on staging computed tomography (CT) that predict the need for venous resection during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for resectable PDAC. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent PD for resectable staged PDAC (as per NCCN criteria) between 2011 and 2020. Staging CTs were independently reviewed by two specialist radiologists blinded to the clinical outcomes. Univariate and multivariate risk analyses were performed. RESULTS: In total, 296 PDs were included. Venous resection was performed in 62 (21%) cases. There was a higher rate of resection margin positivity in the vein resection group (72.6% vs. 48.7%, p = 0.001). Tumour at the neck of the pancreas, superior mesenteric vein involvement of ≥10 mm and pancreatic duct dilatation were identified as independent predictors for venous resection. DISCUSSION: Staging CT parameters can predict the need for venous resection during PD for resectable cases of PDAC. This may assist in surgical planning, patient selection and counselling. Future efforts should concentrate on validating these results or identifying additional predictors in a multicentre and prospective setting.

Technical Strategy for Pancreatic Body Cancers: A Raison d'etre of Distal Pancreatectomy with Portal Resection.

BACKGROUND: Advancements in multiagent chemotherapy have expanded the surgical indications for pancreatic cancer. Although pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with portal vein resection (PVR) has become widely adopted, distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR remains rarely performed because of its technical complexity. This study was designed to assess the feasibility of DP-PVR compared with PD-PVR for pancreatic body cancers, with a focus on PV complications and providing optimal reconstruction techniques when DP-PVR is necessary. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive pancreatic body cancer patients who underwent pancreatectomy with PVR between 2005 and 2020. An algorithm based on the anatomical relationship between the arteries and PV was used for optimal surgical selection. RESULTS: Among 119 patients, 32 underwent DP-PVR and 87 underwent PD-PVR. Various reconstruction techniques were employed in DP-PVR cases, including patch reconstruction, graft interposition, and wedge resection. The majority of PD-PVR cases involved end-to-end anastomosis. The length of PVR was shorter in DP-PVR (25 vs. 40 mm; p < 0.001). Although Clavien-Dindo ≥3a was higher in DP-PVR (p = 0.002), inpatient mortality and R0 status were similar. Complete PV occlusion occurred more frequently in DP-PVR than in PD-PVR (21.9% vs. 1.1%; p < 0.001). A cutoff value of 30 mm for PVR length was determined to be predictive of nonrecurrence-related PV occlusion after DP-PVR. The two groups did not differ significantly in recurrence or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: DP-PVR had higher occlusion and postoperative complication rates than PD-PVR. These findings support the proposed algorithm and emphasize the importance of meticulous surgical manipulation when DP-PVR is deemed necessary.

The Short- and Long-Term Surgical Results of Consecutive Hepatopancreaticoduodenectomy for Wide-Spread Biliary Malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-free resection (R0) is one of the most important factors for the long-term survival of biliary carcinoma. For some patients with widespread invasive cancer located between the hilar and intrapancreatic bile duct, hepatopancreaticoduodenectomy (HPD) is considered a radical surgery for R0 resection. However, HPD is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Furthermore, previous reports have not shown lymph node metastasis (LNM) status, such as the location or number, which could influence the prognosis after HPD. In this study, first, we explored the prognostic factors for survival, and second, we evaluated whether the LNM status (number and location of LNM) would influence the decision on surgical indications in patients with widely spread biliary malignancy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 54 patients who underwent HPD with hepatectomy in ≥2 liver sectors from January 2003 to December 2021 (HPD-G). We also evaluated 54 unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma patients who underwent chemotherapy from January 2010 to December 2021 (CTx-G). RESULTS: R0 resection was performed in 48 patients (89%). The median survival time (MST) and 5-year overall survival rate of the HPD-G and CTx-G groups were 36.9 months and 31.1%, and 19.6 months and 0%, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that pathological portal vein involvement was an independent prognostic factor for survival (MST: 18.9 months). Additionally, patients with peripancreatic LNM had worse prognoses (MST: 13.3 months) than CTx-G. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with peripancreatic LNM or PV invasion might be advised to be excluded from surgery-first indications for HPD.

Vein Wall Invasion Is a More Reliable Predictor of Oncological Outcomes than Vein-Related Margins after Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Early Stages of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with vein resection is the only potentially curative option for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with venous involvement. The aim of our study was to assess the oncological prognostic significance of the different variables of venous involvement in patients undergoing PD for resectable and borderline-resectable with venous-only involvement (BR-V) PDAC. We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively acquired data over a 10-year period. Of the 372 patients included, 105 (28%) required vein resection and vein wall involvement was identified in 37% of those. A multivariable analysis failed to identify the vein-related resection margins as independent predictors for OS, DFS or LR. Vein wall tumour involvement was an independent predictor of OS (risk x1.7-2) and DFS (risk x1.9-2.2) in all models, while it replaced overall surgical margin positivity as the only parameter independently predicting LR during an analysis of separate resection margins (risk x2.4). Vein wall tumour invasion may be a more reliable predictor of oncological outcomes compared to traditionally reported parameters. Future studies should focus on possible pre-operative investigations that could identify these cases and management pathways that could yield a survival benefit, such as the use of neoadjuvant treatments.

Impact of Portal Vein Resection (PVR) in Patients Who Underwent Curative Intended Pancreatic Head Resection.

The oncological impact of portal vein resection (PVR) in pancreatic cancer surgery remains contradictory. Different variables might have an impact on the outcome. The aim of the present study is the retrospective assessment of the frequency of PVR, histological confirmation of tumor infiltration, and comparison of oncological outcomes in PVR patients. We retrieved n = 90 patients from a prospectively collected data bank who underwent pancreas surgery between 2012 and 2019 at the University Medical Centre Göttingen (Germany) and showed a histologically confirmed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While 50 patients (55.6%) underwent pancreatic resection combined with PVR, 40 patients (44.4%) received standard pancreatic surgery. Patients with distal pancreatectomy or a tumor other than PDAC were excluded. PVR was performed either as local excision or circular resection of the portal vein. Clinical/patient data and follow-ups were retrieved. The median follow-up period was 20.5 months. Regarding the oncological outcome, a statistically poorer CSS (p = 0.04) was observed in PVR patients. There was no difference (p = 0.18) in patients' outcomes between tangential and complete PVR, while n = 21 (42% of PVR patients) showed portal vein infiltration. The correlation between performed PVR and resection status was statistically significant: 48.6% of PVR patients achieved R0 resections compared to 75% in non-PVR patients (p = 0.03). Patients who underwent PDAC surgery with PVR show a significantly poorer outcome regardless of PVR type. Tumor size and R-status remain two important variables significantly associated with outcome. Since there is a lack of standardization for the indication of PVR, it remains unknown if the need for resection of vein structures during pancreatic resection represents the biological aggressiveness of the tumor or is biased by the experience of the surgeon.

Agenesis of Dorsal Pancreas and Solid Pseudopapillary Tumor: Ventral Pancreas Preserving Portal Vein Resection and Reconstruction Using a Peritoneal Graft.

A diabetic lady in her 40s was referred to surgical oncologists with epigastric pain associated with vomiting. Computed Tomography (CT) Abdomen with contrast demonstrated a mass arising from the head of the pancreas with the absence of dorsal pancreas, confirmed on magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography (MRCP). A core needle biopsy was done, and the tumor was revealed to be a solid pseudopapillary epithelial neoplasm. She underwent sub-total pancreatectomy preserving the duodenum and ventral pancreas as there was adequate free margin; however due to the tumor abutting the anterior wall of the portal vein, it was resected, and reconstruction was done using a peritoneal graft. The patient made a good recovery without any significant post-operative events.

Surgical and endovascular treatment of pelvic venous disorder: Results of a multicentre retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we investigated the clinical outcomes after gonadal vein resection (GVR) and gonadal vein embolization (GVE) with coils in patients with pelvic venous disorder (PeVD). We also assessed the rates of procedural complications and disease recurrence. METHODS: Our multicenter retrospective cohort study included 361 female patients with PeVD-related chronic pelvic pain (CPP) and gonadal vein reflux who underwent GVR (n = 184) or GVE with coils (n = 177) from 1999 to 2020. The clinical outcomes (ie, presence and severity of CPP, procedural complications, disease recurrence) were assessed at 1 month and 1, 3, and 5 years after intervention. The pain intensity before and after treatment was assessed using a visual analog scale. All the patients underwent duplex ultrasound after GVR and GVE, and those with persistent CPP and suspected perforation of the gonadal vein by the coils were also evaluated by multiplanar pelvic venography. RESULTS: GVR and GVE was associated with the reduction or elimination of CPP at 1 month after treatment in 100% and 74% of patients and postprocedural complications in 14% and 37% of patients, respectively (Р < 0.01 for both). The most common complication after either GVR or GVE was pelvic vein thrombosis (11% and 22% patients, respectively; P < .01 between groups). GVE was associated with postembolization syndrome in 20%, coil protrusion in 6%, and coil migration in 1% of patients. The long-term recurrence rate after GVR and GVE was 6% and 16%, respectively (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Both GVR and GVE were found to be effective in treating patients with PeVD. However, GVR was associated with better efficacy in the relief of CPP and lower rates of procedural complications and disease recurrence.

Management of Intra-Operative Hemorrhage and Safe Venous Resection in Robotic-Assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Techniques to Avoid Open Conversion.

Robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is increasingly utilized for operable periampullary malignancies with oncologic outcomes compared to the open approach. Indications can be carefully expanded to select borderline resectable tumors, but bleeding remains a significant threat. Moreover, the need for venous resection and reconstructions increases as more complex cases are selected to undergo RPD. Herein, we present a video compilation of our approach to safe venous resections during RPD, followed by several video examples of intraoperative hemorrhage highlighting various techniques and tips that the console and bedside surgeon can utilize to control bleeding. Conversion to an open procedure should not be seen as a failure but rather as a safe and sound intraoperative decision made in the patient's best interest. Nonetheless, with experience and proper technique, many intraoperative hemorrhages and venous resections can be managed in a minimally invasive fashion.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy with major vein resection for pancreatic head cancer.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with major vein resection is a challenging procedure. Herein, we evaluated the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic vein resection in pancreatic head cancer with portal vein/superior mesenteric vein (PV/SMV) invasion, and compared the survival rate following laparoscopic surgery with that following open surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of all patients with pancreatic head cancer who underwent surgery performed by a single surgeon from January 2015 to December 2017. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to compare the disease-free survival, while Cox-proportional hazard models were used to analyze prognostic factors for survival. RESULTS: Among 76 patients, 63 underwent open PD and 13 underwent laparoscopic PD with PV/SMV resection. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications, including portal vein stenosis and portal vein thrombus, recurrence of tumors, or pathological outcomes after surgery between the groups. There was also no significant difference in disease-free survival (p = .803) between the two groups. Additionally, the surgical method was not an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic PD with major vein resection can be feasibly performed in select patients with abutment and focal narrowing of the PV/SMV in pancreatic head cancer.

Tips and tricks for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric/portal vein resection and reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Open pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (OPD-VR) is now standard of care in patients who responded to neoadjuvant therapies. Feasibility of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) with vein resection (RPD-VR) was shown, but no study provided a detailed description of the technical challenges associated with this formidable operation. Herein, we describe the trips and tricks for technically successful RPD-VR. METHODS: The vascular techniques used in RPD-VR were borrowed from OPD-VR, as well as from our experience with robotic transplantation of both kidney and pancreas. Vein resection was classified into 4 types according to the international study group of pancreatic surgery. Each type of vein resection was described in detail and shown in a video. RESULTS: Between October 2008 and November 2021, a total of 783 pancreatoduodenectomies were performed, including 233 OPDs-VR (29.7%). RPD was performed in 256 patients (32.6%), and RPDs-VR in 36 patients (4.5% of all pancreatoduodenectomies; 15.4% of all pancreatoduodenectomies with vein resection; 14.0% of all RPDs). In RPD-VR vein resections were: 4 type 1 (11.1%), 10 type 2 (27.8%), 12 type 3 (33.3%) and 10 type 4 (27.8%). Vascular patches used in type 2 resections were made of peritoneum (n = 8), greater saphenous vein (n = 1), and deceased donor aorta (n = 1). Interposition grafts used in type 4 resections were internal left jugular vein (n = 8), venous graft from deceased donor (n = 1) and spiral saphenous vein graft (n = 1). There was one conversion to open surgery (2.8%). Ninety-day mortality was 8.3%. There was one (2.8%) partial vein thrombosis, treated with heparin infusion. CONCLUSIONS: We have reported 36 technically successful RPDs-VR. We hope that the tips and tricks provided herein can contribute to safer implementation of RPD-VR. Based on our experience, and according to data from the literature, we strongly advise that RPD-VR is performed by expert surgeons at high volume centers.

Retrospective Analysis of Complications After Gonadal Vein Interventions for Pelvic Venous Disorder.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate and compare complications after gonadal vein embolization (GVE) with coils and gonadal vein resection (GVR) in patients with pelvic venous disorder (PeVD). METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study included 277 female patients with PeVD who underwent GVE with coils (n = 150) or GVR (n = 122) in the period from 2000 to 2020. The participants were selected from a cohort of 4975 patients with chronic pelvic pain (CPP), of whom 1107 suffered from the PeVD-related CPP and 305 underwent surgical or endovascular intervention on the gonadal veins. The GVR technique was open retroperitoneal in 92, endoscopic transperitoneal in 18, and retroperitoneal in 12 patients. Clinical outcomes included 30-day complication rates and 3-year PeVD recurrence rates. The pain intensity was assessed before and after the procedure using a visual analogue scale. All patients underwent duplex ultrasound after the procedure, and those with persisting pain and suspected gonadal vein perforation with coil were also examined using computed tomographic venography. RESULTS: A substantial pelvic pain relief was achieved within 30 d after GVE and GVR in 73% and 100% patients, accordingly (Р = 0.001). Complications after GVE were identified in 85 (56%) patients. The major complications included pelvic vein thrombosis (PVT) and calf deep vein thrombosis (24%), postembolization syndrome (22%), and coil protrusion (5.3%). Complications after GVR occurred in 14 (11%) patients and consisted of PVT (10%) and ileus (1.6%). The 3-year recurrence rates after GVE and GVR were 11% and 5%, accordingly (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PeVD, the gonadal vein embolization with coils is associated with a high complication rate, which can be reduced with further development of the GVE technique, the use of new embolic agents, and the selection of a treatment method based on the patient's body composition.

Prognostic Value of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Carcinoma Followed by Pancreatectomy with Portal Vein Resection and Reconstruction with Venous Allograft.

BACKGROUND: Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) represents one of the current research hotspots in the field of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The aim of this study is to evaluate the prognostic value of NAC in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) followed by pancreatectomy with portal vein (PV) resection and reconstruction with venous allograft (VAG). METHODS: Medical records of patients with BPRC who underwent pancreatectomy with concomitant PV resection and reconstruction with VAG between April 2013 and March 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. Outcomes of patients with and without NAC (NAC, Group 1 vs. non-NAC, Group 2) were compared with focus on R0 resection rates, morbidity, and survival. RESULTS: Of the 77 patients with pancreatectomy, PV resection and reconstruction with VAG were identified. Overall survival (OS) rates of 0.5-, 1-, and 2-year were 80.5%, 59.7%, and 31.2%, respectively (median survival time, MST, 14 months). Of these, 24 patients (Group 1) underwent operation following received NAC, and the remaining 53 patients did not (Group 2). The R0 resection rate of vascular margin was 100% vs. 84.9% (p = 0.04), respectively. Morbidity of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was 0% vs. 17.8% (p = 0.07), respectively. The OS of 0.5-, 1- and 2-year and MST of 2 groups were 83.3%, 66.7%, 41.7%, 16 months, and 79.2%, 55.6%, 26.4%, 13 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) serum level and postoperative chemotherapy were independent prognostic factors in patients with BRPC after surgery. CONCLUSION: NAC might improve the R0 resection rate and POPF in patients with BRPC who underwent pancreatectomy with concomitant PV resection and reconstruction with VAG. Survival benefit exists in patients with BRPC who received NAC before pancreatectomy. Postoperative chemotherapy also had a favorable effect on OS of BRPC patients. Elevated CA 19-9 serum level is associated with poor prognosis, even after NAC-combining operation.

A Case of Preserved Blood Flow to the Portal Vein Due to the Concurrent Reconstruction of the Superior Mesenteric Vein and the Splenic Vein Using an Artificial Blood Vessel.

Pancreatic cancer is often advanced and invades the major blood vessels around the pancreas. Portal vein (PV) and/or superior mesenteric vein (SMV) resection is performed for radical resection. In such cases, end-to-end anastomosis is best if the remnant vein is sufficiently long. However, when the excision distance is long, reconstruction requires an artificial blood vessel. In contrast, there is no consensus concerning the need for splenic vein (SV) reconstruction. We herein report a case in which portal vein thrombus and congestion of the bowel that occurred after PV-SMV reconstruction were improved by additional anastomosis of the PV-SV.

Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of jejunal varix of the afferent loop after pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Jejunal varix is a concerning late complication after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) due to the risk of recurrent and intractable bleeding. Our aim was to investigate the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of jejunal varix after PD. METHODS: A total of 709 patients who underwent PD between 2007 and 2017 were included. Preoperative and postoperative CT images were reviewed to evaluate the development of portal vein (PV) stenosis (≥50%) and jejunal varices. RESULTS: Jejunal varix developed in 83 (11.7%) patients at a median of 12 months after PD. Eighteen (21.7%) patients experienced variceal bleeding. PV stenosis (P < 0.001; odds ratio [OR] 33.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 15.6-66.7) and PV/superior mesenteric vein resection (P = 0.028; OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-4.7) were independent risk factors for jejunal varix. Of the nine patients who underwent stent placement for PV stenosis before the formation of jejunal varices, none experienced variceal bleeding. By contrast, 18 (27.3%) of the 135 patients without PV stent placement experienced at least one episode of variceal bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of jejunal varix was substantial after PD. PV stenosis was a strong risk factor for jejunal varix. Early PV stent placement and maintaining stent patency could reduce the risk of variceal bleeding in patients with PV stenosis.