Optimal radial force and size for palliation in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: a comparative analysis of current stent technology.

BACKGROUND: The optimal use of esophageal stents for malignant and benign esophageal strictures continues to be plagued with variability in pain tolerance, migration rates, and reflux-related symptoms. The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in radial force exhibited by a variety of esophageal stents with respect to the patient's esophageal stricture. METHODS: Radial force testing was performed on eight stents manufactured by four different companies using a hydraulic press and a 5000 N force gage. Radial force was measured using three different tests: transverse compression, circumferential compression, and a three-point bending test. Esophageal stricture composition and diameters were measured to assess maximum diameter, length, and proximal esophageal diameter among 15 patients prior to stenting. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in mean radial force for transverse compression tests at the middle (range 4.25-0.66 newtons/millimeter N/mm) and at the flange (range 3.32-0.48 N/mm). There were also statistical differences in mean radial force for circumferential test (ranged from 1.19 to 10.50 N/mm, p < 0.001) and the three-point bending test (range 0.08-0.28 N/mm, p < 0.001). In an evaluation of esophageal stricture diameters and lengths, the smallest median diameter of the stricture was 10 mm (range 5-16 mm) and the median proximal diameter normal esophagus was 25 mm (range 22-33 mm), which is currently outside of the range of stent diameters. CONCLUSIONS: Tested stents demonstrated significant differences in radial force, which provides further clarification of stent pain and intolerance in certain patients, with either benign or malignant disease. Similarly, current stent diameters do not successfully exclude the proximal esophagus, which can lead to obstructive-type symptoms. Awareness of radial force, esophageal stricture composition, and proximal esophageal diameter must be known and understood for optimal stent tolerance.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy significantly shortens the time to postoperative chemotherapy in patients undergoing major hepatectomies.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy occurs with early initiation, but is commonly delayed due to postoperative complications. Minimally invasive surgery is proven to significantly reduce complications and hospital length of stay. This study compares open versus laparoscopic liver resection in patients requiring adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: 120 consecutive patients with metastatic colorectal liver cancer who underwent liver resection between 2007 through 2012 were reviewed from an IRB prospective database. RESULTS: 44 laparoscopic cases were compared to 76 open cases having equivalent resections. Laparoscopic liver resection patients had lower blood loss (276 ml) than patients with open resection (614 ml). Patients with laparoscopy had shorter length of hospital stay (5 days) than patients with open resection (9 days). Patients with laparoscopic resection had a shorter time of chemotherapy initiation postoperatively (24 days v 39 days). Overall complication rates were higher, but statistically insignificant in patients with open resection. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that the shorter LOS with laparoscopic major hepatectomies allows earlier initiation of chemotherapy compared to the open group, without jeopardizing surgical margins or extent of resection. SUMMARY: Over the past decade multiple authors have established that, despite occasional longer operating times, laparoscopic liver surgery is associated with reduced blood loss, reduced postoperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay. The purpose of this analysis was to determine if the advantages of a minimally invasive approach correspond to shorter initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy versus an open approach.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: improvement in outcomes and similar cost.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of laparoscopic versus open hepatic resection (OHR) exclusively for hepatocellular carcinoma in terms of morbidity and cost. BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic hepatic resection (LHR) has become more prevalent with recent improvements in instrumentation and surgeon experience. METHODS: A review of multicenter, prospectively collected hepatobiliary databases from three institutions was performed from 12/1990 to 12/2009. Prospective evaluation of all patients undergoing hepatectomy for hepatocellular cancer was performed. RESULTS: A total of 354 patients who had resections for Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were analyzed, 100 were performed laparoscopically. The two groups were similar in terms of demographics and comorbidities. Evaluation of outcomes showed significantly higher intraoperative estimated blood loss although postoperative transfusion rates were similar. The incidence of any complication (44 vs 44%, p = 0.23) and 90-day mortality (6 vs 6%, p = 0.8) were similar between the two groups, with a similar reoperation rate (4.0 vs. 2.4%; p = 0.9). Using Cox regression analysis, the laparoscopic approach had no effect on disease-free interval (OR 1.4, CI 0.31-6.3, p = 0.66) or overall survival (HR 1.2, CI 0.59-2.5 p = 0.6). Length of stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group 6.2 vs. 9.3 days (p = 0.001). Adjusted operative charges ($41 vs. $39 k, p = 0.601) and adjusted total hospital charges ($71 vs. $82 k, p = 0.368) were similar in LHR versus OHR. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms previous literature showing comparable perioperative outcomes and recurrence. We further show comparable cost with laparoscopic versus open liver resection for HCC.

Impact of post-operative complications on quality of life after pancreatectomy.

CONTEXT: Pancreatectomies for malignant and benign diseases are increasingly being performed worldwide. Recent studies, that have evaluated quality of life in pancreatectomy, have reported conflicting outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to analyze the quality of life changes reported by patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing pancreatectomy. DESIGN: Post-hoc analysis was performed of a clinical trial examining the safety of intraoperative autotransfusion during oncologic resections. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative (90-day) complications were graded prospectively using a validated 5-point scale. Quality of life parameters were recorded prospectively by a single trained interviewer preoperatively, at the first post-operative outpatient visit, and at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months follow-up using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-An instruments. RESULTS: Pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma was performed in 34 patients with a median follow-up of 2 years (range: 1-1.5 years). Major (grade≥3) complications occurred in 12 (35.3%) of patients. Early (<6 month) recurrence was noted in 2 patients (5.9%). Increased severity of fatigue, pain, dyspnea, and loss of appetite over baseline were noted at initial follow-up (P<0.05); however, symptom scores normalized at 6-week follow-up, and remained stable at 6 months. No significant difference was noted in quality of life metrics between patients with or without major complications (P>0.11). A significant (P=0.023) decline in cognitive function vs. baseline was noted at 6-month follow-up after pancreatectomy. Using a repeated-measures generalized linear model, neither age, nor complication occurrence, nor adjuvant therapy, nor early recurrence accounted for this cognitive decline (P>0.10). CONCLUSION: Quality of life metrics tend to normalize to preoperative levels after pancreatectomy at 6 weeks post-operatively. The occurrence of major complications does not predict a decreased quality of life. The decrease in self-reported cognitive function at six months in this cohort merits further study.

Differences between bipolar compression and ultrasonic devices for parenchymal transection during laparoscopic liver resection.

OBJECTIVES: In laparoscopic liver resection, multiple options for parenchymal transection techniques exist; however, none have emerged as superior. The aim of this study was to compare operative characteristics and outcomes between bipolar compression and ultrasonic devices used for parenchymal transection during laparoscopic liver resection. METHODS: A review of a prospective hepatopancreatobiliary database from December 2002 to August 2009 identified 54 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection with parenchymal division using either a bipolar compression (n= 35) or an ultrasonic (n= 19) device. Operative data, histology and 90-day complication rates were compared between the groups using analysis of variance (anova) and Pearson's chi-squared test. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of age, body mass index, parenchymal steatosis/inflammation or number of segments resected. A shorter time of parenchymal transection was noted for the bipolar compression device (median: 35 min; range: 20-65 min) vs. the ultrasonic device (median: 55 min; range: 29-75 min) (P < 0.001). Median total operative time was also shorter using the bipolar compression device (130 min) than the ultrasonic device (180 min) (P= 0.050). No significant differences between device groups were noted for estimated blood loss, complications of any type or liver-specific complications. CONCLUSIONS: Bipolar compression devices may offer advantages over ultrasonic devices in terms of decreased transection time and total operative time. No differences in postoperative complications in laparoscopic liver resection emerged between patients operated using the devices.