Role of preoperative biliary drainage in jaundiced patients who are candidates for pancreatoduodenectomy or hepatic resection: highlights and drawbacks.

INTRODUCTION: In this review of the literature, we analyze the indications for preoperative drainage in jaundiced patients who are candidates for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or major hepatectomy due to periampullary or proximal bile duct neoplasms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to review the literature and to report on the current management of jaundiced patients with periampullary or proximal bile duct neoplasms who are candidates for PD or major liver resection. BACKGROUND: Jaundiced patients represent a major challenge for surgeons. Alterations and functional impairment caused by jaundice increase the risk of surgery; therefore, preoperative biliary decompression has been suggested. METHODS: A literature review was performed in the MEDLINE database to identify studies on the management of jaundice in patients undergoing PD or liver resection. Papers considering palliative drainage in jaundiced patients were excluded. RESULTS: The first group of papers considered patients affected by middle-distal obstruction from periampullary neoplasms, in which preoperative drainage was applied selectively. The second group of papers evaluated patients with biliary obstructions from proximal biliary neoplasms. In these cases, Asian authors and a few European authors considered it mandatory to drain the future liver remnant (FLR) in all patients, while American and most European authors indicated preoperative drainage only in selected cases (in malnourished patients and in those with hypoalbuminemia, cholangitis or long-term jaundice; with an FLR < 30% or 40%) given the high risk of complications of drainage (choleperitoneum, cholangitis, bleeding, and seeding). The optimal type of biliary drainage is still a matter of debate; recent studies have indicated that endoscopy is preferable to percutaneous drainage. Although the type of endoscopic biliary drainage has not been clearly established, the choice is made between plastic stents and short, covered, metallic stents, while other authors suggest the use of nasobiliary drainage. CONCLUSIONS: : A multidisciplinary evaluation (made by a surgeon, biliary endoscopist, gastroenterologist, and radiologist) of jaundiced neoplastic patients should be performed before deciding to perform biliary drainage. Middle-distal obstruction in patients who are candidates for PD does not usually require routine biliary drainage. Proximal obstruction in patients who are candidates for major hepatic resection in the majority of cases requires a drain; however, the type, site, number, and approach must be defined and tailored according to the planned hepatic resection. Recently, the use of preoperative biliary drainage limited to the FLR has been a suggested strategy. However, multicenter, randomized, controlled trials should be conducted to clarify this issue.

ABO-Incompatible Orthotopic Liver Transplant as a Rescue Strategy for Fulminant Hepatic Failure in a Recipient With Breast Cancer: Highlights on Transplant Management.

Pretransplant malignancy unrelated to hepatocellular carcinoma is a challenging condition in liver transplantation. Standard of care requires the completion of treatments and a disease-free period before the transplant. However, in the setting of a fulminant hepatic failure, these steps cannot be achieved. A 46-year-old woman with a recent diagnosis of stage 2 breast cancer presented to our center with a fulminant hepatic failure of unknown origin. Because of the rapid worsening of her clinical status, she was listed as eligible for transplant after a multidisciplinary evaluation. Because of a shortage of available donors, a deceased donor ABO-incompatible liver transplant with a synchronous mastectomy and first-level axillary lymphadenectomy was performed. To prevent antibody-mediated rejection, a triple immunosuppression therapy and a postoperative therapeutic plasmapheresis were performed. The patient remains without cancer recurrence at 18 months of follow-up. Recent studies have shown that cancer recurrence in recipients with pretransplant malignancy is considerably lower than suggested in previously published studies. However,this data is not sufficient to establish evidence-based guidelines on the indications and timing of transplant. In selected cases, the presence of a pretransplant malignancy does notrepresent a contraindication for a rescue liver transplant. Further studies are needed to stratify the risk and to help clinicians to choose the best strategy in an urgent context such as this.

Complications and Outcomes of Endoscopic Treatment in a Cohort of Patients With Biliary Stenosis After Orthotopic Liver Transplant: A Retrospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: Liver transplant represents the criterion standard therapy for end-stage liver disease. Biliary complications after liver transplant have shown an increased trend and are characterized by anastomotic and nonanastomotic stenoses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective single-center observational study included 217 patients who underwent liver transplant between January 2004 and December 2014; 18 patients had anastomotic (8.3%) and 29 (13.4%) had non-anastomotic stenoses. Patients with and without biliary stenosis were compared with regard to their preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters and donor characteristics. Patients with biliary stenosis were divided into 3 cohorts according to the type of endoscopic treatment performed (single plastic, multiple plastic, and fully covered self-ex-pandable metal stents). We compared the patients with different types of endoscopic biliary drainages for length and type of stenosis, presence of stones, time of onset and treatment, number of procedures, complications, and success rate. RESULTS: Preoperative Child-Pugh and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores, complication and reoperation rates, and donor age were significantly higher in the stenosis group. We found no statistical differences other than length of stenosis between patients with multiple stents and self-expanding metal stents. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative recipient conditions and postoperative morbidities may represent risk factors for development of biliary strictures. Consequently, the optimal endoscopic treatment should be tailored to the type and the onset of stenosis and the patient's condition.

Adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater: T-stage, chromosome 17p allelic loss, and extended pancreaticoduodenectomy are relevant prognostic factors.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic significance of different clinico-pathological and molecular factors, and to compare survival after standard and extended pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in ampulla of Vater adenocarcinoma (AVAC). There are discordant data on factors affecting prognosis, and hence therapeutic choices, in AVAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical-pathological factors were evaluated in 59 patients, subjected to PD for AVAC; in 42 subjects information on chromosome 17p and 18q allelic losses (LOH) and microsatellite instability (MSI) was also available. The association between survival and type of PD was investigated in the 25 patients operated between 1990 and 2001 (16 standard and nine extended). RESULTS: The overall 5- and 10-year tumor-related survival rates were 46% and 33%, respectively. Sixteen patients had T-stages 1-2, 14 T-stage 3, and 29 T-stage 4 cancers. Chromosome 17p and 18q LOH were detected in 23 (55%) and 15 cases (36%), respectively, and in 12 cases (29%) coexisted. Five cases were MSI-positive (12%). At univariate analysis, poor survival was associated with cancer ulceration (P = 0.051), poor differentiation (P = 0.008), T-stage 4 (P < 0.001), nodal metastases (P = 0.004), chromosome 17p (P < 0.001) and 18q LOH (P = 0.002), and absence of MSI (P = 0.009). At multivariate analysis, only T-stage (P = 0.002) and 17p LOH (P = 0.001) were independent predictors of survival. All patients with MSI-positive cancers were long-survivors (>12 yrs), whereas only 30% of MSI-negative cancer patients survived at 5 years. Extended pancreaticoduodenectomy was associated with a 3-year disease-related survival higher than standard resection (83% vs 31%; P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: MSI and chromosome 17p status allow to better define prognosis within ampullary cancers at the same stage. Surgery alone resulted curative in MSI-positive cancer patients, whereas it was inadequate in patients showing allelic losses, who might benefit from adjuvant therapy. In this observational study, extended PD was associated with increased survival compared to standard procedures.

The Dagradi-Serio-Iacono operation central pancreatectomy.

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a segmental pancreatic resection indicated to remove benign or low-grade malignant tumors of the isthmus and proximal part of the body of the pancreas. The main advantage of this operation compared with major resections is that it permits to spare normal pancreatic parenchyma; moreover, spleen and upper digestive and biliary tracts are saved. The description of the complete operation was reported for the first time by Dagradi and Serio in 1984 and subsequently spread worldwide by Iacono and Serio. In our opinion, it should be called the Dagradi-Serio-Iacono operation, by the names of the surgeons who first performed it (Dagradi and Serio), and by the names of the surgeons responsible for reporting it worldwide with precise indications (Iacono and Serio). Operation requires a midline or a bilateral subcostal incision; the lesser sac is entered through dissection of the transverse colon from the omentum or by transecting the gastrocolic ligament. The pancreatic segment harboring the lesion is then mobilized and its posterior surface carefully dissected from the splenic vein and artery. Subsequently, the pancreatic portion harboring the tumor is isolated at its superior margin from the splenic artery after the pancreas is transacted. The extent of the resection of the central segment is limited on the right by the gastroduodenal artery and on the left by the need to leave at least 5 cm of normal pancreatic remnant. The resected pancreatic specimen is sent to the pathologist for confirmation of diagnosis and to check if the resection margins are adequate. Hemostasis of the two raw surfaces is achieved with interrupted 5 or 4/0 nonabsorbable stitches. When it is not stapled, the Wirsung's duct of the cephalic stump is sutured selectively with a figure-of-eight nonabsorbable stitch. An end-to-end invaginated pancreaticojejunostomy is carried out with a single layer of interrupted stitches. The operation is concluded with the construction of an end-to-side jejuno-jejunostomy about 50 cm distal to the pancreatic anastomosis. Other techniques for reconstruction of the distal stump using jejunum or stomach have been described. One or two soft drains are brought out on the right side. The fluid collected from this drain is checked for amylase level on postoperative days 3, 5, and 7; if the level is low or absent, the drain is removed. Central pancreatectomy is a safe technique for benign or low malignant tumors of the pancreatic neck that allows curing the tumor with evident functional results without increasing the risk for the patient. We can say that CP has a clear role like pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy and we think that a pancreatic surgeon has to include this procedure in his/her technical skills. In order to obtain excellent results, correct indications and experience in pancreatic surgery are recommended.

Central pancreatectomy: the Dagradi Serio Iacono operation. Evolution of a surgical technique from the pioneers to the robotic approach.

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a parenchyma-sparing surgical procedure. The aims are to clarify the history and the development of CP and to give credits to those from whom it came. Ehrhardt, in 1908, described segmental neck resection (SNR) followed, in 1910, by Finney without reconstructive part. In 1950 Honjyo described two cases of SNR combined with gastrectomy for gastric cancer infiltrating the neck of the pancreas. Guillemin and Bessot (1957) and Letton and Wilson (1959) dealt only with the reconstructive aspect of CP. Dagradi and Serio, in 1982, performed the first CP including the resective and reconstructive aspects. Subsequently Iacono has validated it with functional endocrine and exocrine tests and popularized it worldwide. In 2003, Baca and Bokan performed laparoscopic CP and, In 2004, Giulianotti et al performed a robotic assisted CP. CP is performed worldwide either by open surgery or by using minimally-invasive or robotic approaches. This confirms that the operation does not belong to whom introduced it but to everyone who carries out it; however credit must be given to those from whom it came.

Indications and technique of central pancreatectomy-early and late results.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Central pancreatectomy (CP) is an operation that allows one to resect benign or low grade malignant tumours located in the pancreatic isthmus that are not suitable for enucleation. The main advantage of this operation compared with major resections is that it permits to spare normal pancreatic parenchyma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The operation is carried out by exposition of the pancreatic neck involved by the lesion. Thereafter, the gland is dissected from the splenic artery and porto-mesenteric axis and divided with a 1 cm clear margin. The cephalic stump is sutured, and the distal stump is anastomosed end-to-end or end-to-side with a Roux-en-Y jejunal loop. We treated 20 patients with this technique. The indications for CP were: serous cystadenoma in seven patients, mucinous in three, solid cystic papillary tumour in one, metastasis from renal cancer in one and endocrine tumour in eight patients. RESULTS: Mortality rate was 0% and morbidity rate was 35%; pancreatic fistulas occurred in 25% of the cases and were treated conservatively. Results of postoperative endocrine and exocrine function tests were normal in all controlled patients. All the patients are alive without evidence of local recurrence. CONCLUSION: CP is a safe technique for benign or low-grade malignant tumours of the pancreatic neck that allows one to cure the tumour with evident functional results without increasing the risk to the patient.

Results of pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer: extended versus standard procedure.

In Western experience, the long-term survival benefit after extended pancreaticoduodenectomy (EPD) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is still controversial. The aim of this work was to evaluate weather EPD for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma prolongs long-term survival compared to standard pancreaticoduodenectomy (SPD). From November 1992 to September 1996, we performed pancreatic resections in 30 patients affected by stage I-III pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: 13 patients underwent SPD and 17 patients underwent EPD, consecutively. The two groups of patients were similar for all the demographic, clinical, and pathological characteristics, and all the intraoperative factors considered except the number of resected lymph nodes (mean number per case = 34.2 +/- 15.5 in the EPD group versus 12.8 +/- 3.6 in the SPD group, p <0.001) and the operative time (median time per case = 375 minutes in the EPD group versus 270 minutes in the SPD group, p = 0.009). Patients in the two groups experienced a similar postoperative course. The estimated survival probability at 1 and 3 years after operation was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49 to 0.90) and 0.24 (95% CI: 0.07 to 0.45) in the EPD group; 0.31 (95% CI: 0.09 to 0.55) and 0.08 (95% CI: 0.00 to 0.29) in the SPD group (p = 0.014). According to a Cox model, the treatment was associated with R0 patients' long-term survival (SPD versus EPD: hazard ratio (HR) = 4.82, 95% CI: 1.66 to 14.00, p = 0.004). Grading of tumor differentiation was confirmed to be a relevant prognostic factor (poor versus moderate: HR = 4.33, 95% CI: 1.49 to 12.61, p = 0.007), whereas type of resection had no significant effect (pylorus-preserving versus hemigastrectomy: HR = 1.49, 95% CI: 0.56 to 3.95, p = 0.42). The proportion of R0 patients with local recurrence was lower in the EPD group (20.0% versus 70.0%, p = 0.034).