IS THERE A ROLE FOR BILIODIGESTIVE BYPASS SURGERY IN TREATING CHOLESTASIS IN ADVANCED PANCREATIC CANCER?

BACKGROUND: The unresectable pancreatic head tumors develop obstructive jaundice and cholestasis during follow-up. Cholestasis is associated with complications and treatment options are endoscopic stenting (ES) and biliary bypass surgery (BBS). AIMS: The aim of the current study was to compare the safety and efficacy of biliary bypass surgery (BBS) and endoscopic stenting (ES) for cholestasis in advanced pancreas cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort of patients with cholestasis and unresectable or metastatic pancreas cancer, treated with BBS or ES. Short and long-term outcomes were evaluated. We considered the need for hospital readmission due to biliary complications as treatment failure. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients (BBS=43; ES=50) were included in the study. BBS was associated with a higher demand for postoperative intensive care (37 vs.10%; p=0.002, p<0.050), longer intensive care unit stay (1.44 standard deviation±2.47 vs. 0.66±2.24 days; p=0.004, p<0.050), and longer length of hospital stay (7.95±2.99 vs. 4.29±5.50 days; p<0.001, p<0.050). BBS had a higher risk for procedure-related complications (23 vs. 8%; p=0.049, p<0.050). There was no difference in overall survival between BBS and ES (p=0.089, p>0.050). ES was independently associated with a higher risk for treatment failure than BBS on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 3.97; p=0.009, p<0.050). CONCLUSIONS: BBS is associated with longer efficacy than ES for treating cholestasis in advanced pancreatic cancer. However, the BBS is associated with prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stays and higher demand for intensive care.

Temporary abdominal closure in oncological patients: Surgical characteristics and implications.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In critically ill patients, temporary abdominal closure (TAC) is utilized for conditions like abdominal compartment syndrome risk, gross abdominal contamination, and intestinal loop viability doubts. TAC techniques aim to safeguard abdominal contents, drain intraperitoneal fluids, and minimize fascia and skin damage. Our goal is to outline clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes in oncological patients undergoing peritoneostomy. METHODS: Patients undergoing TAC with vacuum therapy at a tertiary oncological center were studied, with data sourced from an institutional database. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients (54.3% female), with an average age of 63.1 ± 12.3 years, were included in the study. The primary tumor site was predominantly gastrointestinal (78.2%). Patients presented systemic signs of chronic disease, reflected by a mean body mass index of 18.2 ± 7.6 kg/m², hemoglobin level of 9.2 ± 1.8 g/dL, and albumin level of 2.3 ± 0.6 g/dL. Additionally, most patients had a low-performance status (53% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 1/2, 44.8% Karnofsky score ≤80, and 61.2% Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥6). Emergency surgical complications were the main reasons for initial surgery (68%), with the majority attributed to fecal peritonitis (65.9%). Only 14.8% of patients achieved complete abdominal closure with an average of 24.8 days until closure. The in-hospital mortality rate was 85.2%. CONCLUSION: TAC is an alternative for oncological patients with surgical complications, but it carries a high mortality rate due to the compromised conditions of the patients.

Choledocoduodenal Biliary Bypass for Recurrent Choledocholithiasis in a Patient with Gastric Bypass: An Old Trick to Solve a Modern Problem.

Bariatric patients are at risk for developing biliary stones. Choledocholithiasis poses a significant challenge in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients due to anatomical changes, complicating the treatment. We present a case of a 71-year-old female with recurrent choledocholithiasis post-bariatric surgery. After failed endoscopic attempts, a biliodigestive bypass with choledocoduodenal anastomosis was performed successfully using the Da Vinci robotic platform. This technique offers a single anastomosis, excluding the duodenum from transit, preventing food reflux. The patient had an uneventful recovery with no recurrence after 1 year. The choledocoduodenal anastomosis is a viable option for biliary diversion in patients with challenging endoscopic access post-gastric bypass, offering favorable outcomes.

ROBOTIC ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with less blood loss and faster functional recovery. However, the benefits of robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are unknown. AIMS: To compare RDP versus LDP for surgical treatment of benign lesions, pre-malignant and borderline malignant pancreatic neoplasias. METHODS: This is a retrospective study comparing LDP with RDP. Main outcomes were overall morbidity and overall costs. Secondary outcomes were pancreatic fistula (PF), infectious complications, readmission, operative time (OT) and length of hospital stay (LOS). RESULTS: Thirty patients submitted to LDP and 29 submitted to RDP were included in the study. There was no difference regarding preoperative characteristics. There was no difference regarding overall complications (RDP - 72,4% versus LDP - 80%, p=0,49). Costs were superior for patients submitted to RDP (RDP=US$ 6,688 versus LDP=US$ 6,149, p=0,02), mostly due to higher costs of surgical materials (RDP=US$ 2,364 versus LDP=1,421, p=0,00005). Twenty-one patients submitted to RDP and 24 to LDP developed pancreatic fistula (PF), but only 4 RDP and 7 LDP experienced infectious complications associated with PF. OT (RDP=224 min. versus LDP=213 min., p=0.36) was similar, as well as conversion to open procedure (1 RDP and 2 LDP). CONCLUSIONS: The postoperative morbidity of robotic distal pancreatectomy is comparable to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. However, the costs of robotic distal pancreatectomy are slightly higher.

Robotic assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a retrospective study / Pancreatectomia distal robótica versus laparoscópica: um estudo retrospectivo

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with less blood loss and faster functional recovery. However, the benefits of robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are unknown. AIMS: To compare RDP versus LDP for surgical treatment of benign lesions, pre-malignant and borderline malignant pancreatic neoplasias. METHODS: This is a retrospective study comparing LDP with RDP. Main outcomes were overall morbidity and overall costs. Secondary outcomes were pancreatic fistula (PF), infectious complications, readmission, operative time (OT) and length of hospital stay (LOS). RESULTS: Thirty patients submitted to LDP and 29 submitted to RDP were included in the study. There was no difference regarding preoperative characteristics. There was no difference regarding overall complications (RDP - 72,4% versus LDP - 80%, p=0,49). Costs were superior for patients submitted to RDP (RDP=US$ 6,688 versus LDP=US$ 6,149, p=0,02), mostly due to higher costs of surgical materials (RDP=US$ 2,364 versus LDP=1,421, p=0,00005). Twenty-one patients submitted to RDP and 24 to LDP developed pancreatic fistula (PF), but only 4 RDP and 7 LDP experienced infectious complications associated with PF. OT (RDP=224 min. versus LDP=213 min., p=0.36) was similar, as well as conversion to open procedure (1 RDP and 2 LDP). CONCLUSIONS: The postoperative morbidity of robotic distal pancreatectomy is comparable to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. However, the costs of robotic distal pancreatectomy are slightly higher.

RESUMO RACIONAL: A pancreatectomia distal minimamente invasiva (PDMI) está associada a menos perda sanguínea e recuperação funcional mais rápida, no entanto, os benefícios da pancreatectomia distal robótica (PDR) são desconhecidos quando comparada a pancreatectomia distal laparoscópica (PDL). OBJETIVOS: Comparar PDR versus PDL no tratamento cirúrgico de lesões benignas, neoplasias pancreáticas malignas, pré-malignas e limítrofes. MÉTODOS: Estudo retrospectivo comparando PDL com PDR. Os desfechos primários avaliados foram morbidade e custos hospitalares. Os desfechos secundários foram fístula pancreática (FP), complicações infecciosas, readmissão, tempo cirúrgico e tempo de internação hospitalar (TIH). RESULTADOS: Trinta pacientes submetidos a PDL e 29 submetidos a PDR foram incluídos no estudo. Não houve diferença em relação às características pré-operatórias. Não houve diferença em relação às complicações gerais (PDL - 72,4% versus PRD - 80%, p=0,49). Os custos foram superiores para PDR (PDR=US$ 6688 versus PDL=US$ 6149, p=0,02), principalmente devido aos custos mais elevados de materiais cirúrgicos (PDR=US$ 2364 versus PDL=1421, p=0,00005). Vinte e um pacientes submetidos a PDR e 24 submetidos a PDL desenvolveram fístula pancreática (PF), no entanto, apenas 4 submetidos PDR e 7 a PDL apresentaram complicações infecciosas associadas a FP. O tempo cirúrgico (PDR=224 min. versus PDL=213 min., p=0,36) e a conversão para cirurgia aberta (1 PDR e 2 PDL) não tiveram diferença estatística. CONCLUSÕES: A morbidade pós operatória da pancreatectomia distal robótica é comparável à pancreatectomia distal laparoscópica. Entretando, os custos da pancreatectomia distal robótica são mais elevados.

Management of biliary stones in bariatric surgery.

Morbidly obese and post-bariatric surgery patients are at increased risk for biliary stones formation. The complications related to biliary stones may impose complexity on their management. This study aimed to review the management of biliary conditions in obese and bariatric patients. In this study, a narrative review was performed of the medical, surgical, and endoscopic procedures for the management of biliary stones and their related complications. Knowing the main prophylactic and therapeutic interventions options is essential for clinicians to properly manage the biliary stones in patients candidates or submitted to bariatric surgery. Plain Language Summary: Management of biliary stones in bariatric surgery The complications related to biliary stones may impose complexity on their management. Knowing the main prophylactic and therapeutic intervention options is essential for clinicians to properly manage the biliary stones in patient candidates or submitted to bariatric surgery. This study reviewed the main tools clinicians can handle to properly manage candidates for bariatric surgery or patients submitted to bariatric surgery.