Document Type : Original Article
Abstract
Keywords
Short-term outcome of pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic carcinoma
Hamed Rashad, MD; Mohamed A Mansour,MD; Ahmed Zeidan,MD; Hussein G El-Gohary, MD; Ashraf M Abd elkader, MD
Department of General Surgery, Benha University, Benha, Egypt.
Abstract
Objectives: To illustrate immediate and short-term outcome of pylorus-preserving
pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) as a surgical modality for patients having pancreatic carcinoma.
Patients & methods: The study included 23 patients; 13 males and 10females with mean age of 66.3±4 years. All patients underwent clinical evaluation, laboratory assessment and CT or MRI examination. Primary outcome measures included frequency of leakage, fistula, intra abdominal fluid collection/abscess, delayed gastric emptying and/or postoperative bleeding. Secondary outcome measures included operation time, blood loss, required blood replacement, status of resection margins, number and status of removed lymph nodes, general morbidity, duration of ICU and postoperative (PO) hospital stay and PO overall mortality.
Results: No intraoperative complications or mortality were recorded. Site of tumor origin was pancreatic in 15 patients and ampullary in 8 patients. Nine tumors were poorly differentiated. Mean tumor diameter was 2.4±0.4 em.Surgical margin showed microscopic infiltration in two patients. Perineural and vascular invasions were detected in 13 and 10 patients, respectively. Seventeen patients had positive lymph node metastases in the resection specimen. Mean number of resected lymph nodes was 17±1.8. Mean ICU stay duration was 2.4±0.8 days. One patient developed acute myocardial infarction on the 2nd PO day. The frequency of fiStula development was 13.6%; one patient had intra-abdominal collection and underwent CT guided drainage. Four patients (18.2%) developed wound infection and 6 patients had delayed gastric emptying for total PO morbidity rate of 59.1%. Mean PO hospital stay was 10.6±1.9 days with an immediate PO survival rate of95.7%. Mean duration of follow-up was 31.1±9.1 months with
2-year survival rate of82.6%, 3-year survival rate of39.1% and 4-year survival rate of 13%.
Conclusion: PPPD could be considered as a safe, feasible and effective surgical modality for patients having pancreatic tumors with controllable PO morbidity and PO survival for >4 years in 13%.
Key words: Pancreatic carcinoma, pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy, morbidity, survival.
Introduction:
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in men and the fifth in women, accounting for4.8% and 5.5% of cancer deaths in men and women, respectively. The aggressive biology of these tumors and the high local recurrence rate in combination with the early metastatic spread lead to 5-year survival rates between II% and 2I% after resection.!.2
Surgical resection by means of pancreaticoduodenectomy provides the only
chance of cure for patients with periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. Advances in surgical technique have reduced the operative mortality rate to below 5% in high-volume centers. Nevertheless, operative morbidity remains high, occasionally approaching 30% to 40%, most often including pancreatic fistula, intra abdominal abscesses, sepsis, and delayed gastric emptying.3
The classic Whipple operation is the standard basic surgical procedure performed predominantly for the treatment of
periampullary and pancreatic head cancer. The classic Whipple operation consists of an en bloc removal of the pancreatic head, the duodenum, the common bile duct, the gall bladder, and the distal portion of the stomach together with the adjacent lymph-nodes.Classic Whipple operation can lead to specific complications such as early and late dumping, postoperative weight loss and postoperative reflux.4,5
Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy {PPPD) represents an important advance in the history of pancreatic surgery. The operation can be performed with a low operative mortality and morbidity, is technically easier thanthe standard Whipple resection, and it minimizes the long term physiological disturbance to the patient. Clinical and experimental evidence has substantiated the view that preservation of the pylorus reduces the incidence of marginal anastomotic ulceration following pancreatectomy. Multiple meta-analyses documented that in the absence of relevant differences in mortality, morbidity, PPPD does not compromise the long-term survival in patients with periampullary cancers, and seems to be as effective as the classic Whipple as a surgical modality for management of periampullary cancer.6-8
The present study aimed to illustrate the immediate and short-term outcome of pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy{PPPD) as a surgical modality for patients having pancreatic carcinoma.
Patients and methods:
The current study was conducted at General Surgery Department, Benha University Hospital since June 2007 till March 2012 so as to allow 2-year follow-up period for the last case operated on. After obtaining written fully informed patients' consent, all patients
presenting were admitted at General Surgery
ward for clinical evaluation, laboratory assessment and underwent CT or MRI examination for assuring the diagnosis.
Operative procedure:
Upon opening of the abdomen, liver was carefully inspected and palpated for any metastatic disease. Pancreatic tumor was
palpated and its mobility was assessed, if it is respectable, duodenum and head of pancreas were mobilized and the tumor was then bimanually palpated. Then, mobilization of the second and third parts of duodenum was commenced and continued until the superior mesenteric vein comes into view as it crosses the duodenum. The stomach was mobilized and the right gastro-epiploic vein was meticulously dissected and ligated between ligatures just before its termination in the superior mesenteric vein below the neck of the pancreas. All tributaries passing from the head of pancreas and uncinate process to the superior mesenteric vein were divided between ligatures. Cholecystectomy was performed and common bile duct (CBD) and lower hepatic ducts were mobilized and CBD was divided just above the entry of the cystic duct. Jejunum was mobilized and ligament of Treitz was incised to free the duodenojujenal flexme and proximal jejunum was divided. Then, neck of pancreas was divided, pancreatic duct was cannulated with fine catheter passed into jejunum prior to end-to-side pancreaticojujenal anastomosis which was conducted and the other end of the catheter was gotten out through separate jejunal stab.Then CBD was anastomosed end-to-side to jejunum and proximal jejunum was anastomosed to the pylorus. After assuring hemostasis, abdominal cavity was drained and abdomen was closed, Figure(l-4).
Outcome items:
a. Primary outcome measures are defined as
PO pancreatic associated morbidity (disease specific) and included leakage of pancreatic anastomosis/pancreatic fistula, intra abdominal fluid collection/abscess, biliary leakage and/or postoperative bleeding. Delayed gastric emptying defined as the persistent need for a nasogastric tube for longer than 10 days was also recorded.
b. Secondary outcome measures included
operation time, blood loss, required blood replacement, status of resection margins, number and status of removed lymph nodes, duration of ICU stay, general morbidity including postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding, shock, sepsis; duration ofhospital stay and postoperative overall mortality.
Figure(1):Showed duodenumis kocherized; inforiorvenacava (IVC) anddilated common bile duct (CBD) were also shown.
Figure(3):The view afterthe Jstcutshowing the proximal pylorus and the distal endof the Jst part of the duodenum (D).
Results:
The study included 23 patients; 13 males
and 10 females with mean age of 66.3±4; range: 58-72 years. Fifteen patients had additional co-morbidities with diabetes mellitus was the commonest. Patients' detailed enrollment data are shown in Table(l). All
Table (1): Ptltients' enroUment dma.
Figure (2): Showed sling suspension of the dilated common bile duct (CBD).
Figure (4): The view after completion of excision showing the proximal pylorus and distally the small intestine (S Int.) which was cut for anastomosis.
patients bad PPPD with a meanoperative time of 4±0.8; range:3-5 hours. Mean blood loss was 640±115; range:400-800 ml.All patients required blood transfusion with a mean number of used units was 2.8±0.7; range: 2-3 units Table(2). No intraoperative complications or mortality was recorded.
|
Data are presented as mean±SD & numbers; ranges and percentages are in parenthesis. -
Table (1): Operative data.
Operative time (hours) |
Strata |
3 |
7 (30.4%) |
>3-4 |
9 (39.2%) |
||
>4-5 |
7 (30.4%) |
||
Total |
4±0.8 (3-5) |
||
Blood loss (ml) |
640±115 (400-800) |
||
Number of blood units used |
Strata |
2 |
9 (39.2%) |
3 |
10 (43.4%) |
||
4 |
4 (17.4%) |
||
Total |
2.8±0.7 (2-4) |
Data are presented as mean±SD & numbers,· ranges and percentages are in parenthesis.
The site of tumor origin was pancreatic in
15 patients (65.2%) and ampullary in 8 patients (34.8%). Mean tumor diameter was 2.4±0.4; range: 1.5-3 em. Nine tumors were poorly differentiated (39.1%). Surgical margin showed microscopic infiltration in two patients; one patient had carcinoma involving the margin at the level of the uncinate process adjacent to the superior mesenteric vein and the other had
a positive microscopic margin at the pancreatic neck?body transection site. Thirteen patients (56.5%) showed perineural invasion and 10 patients (43.5%) showed vascular invasion. Seventeen patients (73.9%) had histologically positive lymph node metastases in the resection specimen, and the mean total number of resected lymph nodes was 17±1.8; range: 15-
20 node, Table(3).
Table (3): Pathological data of excised specimens.
Data |
Findings |
|
Site |
Pancreatic |
15(65.2%) |
Periampullary |
8 (34.8%) |
|
Size (em) |
Diameter in its longest axis |
2.4±0.4 (1.5-3) |
Differentiation |
Well |
14 (60.9%) |
Poorly |
9 (39.1%) |
|
Surgical margin invasion |
Yes |
2 (8.7%) |
No |
21 (91.3%) |
|
Perineural invasion |
Yes |
13 (56.5%) |
No |
8 (43.5%) |
|
Perivascular invasion |
Yes |
10 (43.5%) |
No |
21 (91.3%) |
|
Lymph node status |
Positive |
17 (73.9%) |
Negative |
21 (26.1%) |
|
Total number of resected lymph nodes |
17±1.8 (15-20) |
Data are presented as mean±SD & numbers; ranges and percentages are in parenthesis.
All patients passed the immediate postoperative period at surgical ICU for a mean duration of 2.4±0.8; range: 1-4 days. One patient developed acute myocardial infarction on the 2nd postoperative day; he was cardiac patient and had previous coronary artery bypass surgery one year prior to diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Unfortunately, this patient died on the
4th postoperative day because of development of cardiogenic shock that failed to respond to treatment, Table(4).
During hospital stay three patients (13%) developed fistula; the leaking fluid was biliary and CT examination of these patients identified intra-abdominal collection in only one patient and had CT guided collection drainage. All of the three patients received conservative
Table (4): Postoperative data.
treatment and well-responded to it without the need for re-operation. Four patients (17.4%) developed wound infection that responded to conservative treatment in three of them, but the 4th patient was diabetic and infection was flared up, this patient received intensive insulin therapy and wound was drained, after control of diabetes wound healing proceeded uneventfully without the need for re-suturing. Six patients (26.1%) developed delayed gastric emptying for a mean duration of 12.2±1.2; range: 11-14 days. Total PO morbidity rate was 59.1% of patients who remained alive till discharge. Twenty-two patients were discharged alive for an immediate PO survival rate of95.7% after a mean PO hospital stay of
10.6±1.9; range: 8-15 days, Table(4).
Data |
Findings |
|||
ICU data |
Duration of stay (days) |
2.4±0.8 (1-4) |
||
Mortality |
1 (4.3%) |
|||
PO complication |
Biliary leakage |
No collection |
Conservative treatment |
2 |
Abdominal collection |
CT-guided drainage |
1 (4.3%) |
||
Wound infection |
Conservative treatment |
3 (12.3%) |
||
Drainage |
1 (4.3%) |
|||
Delayed gastric emptying |
6 (26.1%) |
|||
Total |
13 (56.5%) |
|||
PO hospital stay (days) |
10.6±1.9 (8-15) |
Data are presented as mean±SD & numbers; ranges and percentages are in parenthesis.
Throughout mean duration of follow-up of
31.1±9.1; range: 6-43 months; 3 patients died for a follow-up survival rate of 87% and a total survival rate of 82.6%. Nineteen patients completed their follow-up for >2 years (2-year
survival rate of 82.6%), 9 patients completed their follow-up for >3 years (3-year survival rate of 39.1%) and 3 patients completed their follow-up for >4 years (4-year survival rate of
13%), Figure(5).
25,----------------------------------------.
2.
23
22
21
20
19
1&
11
16
15
i5 1A
|
c 1)
12
:. 11
|
10
8
|
7
|
·5
l
2
Figure (5): Number of survivals recorded througlwut follow-up period.
Dileuuion:
Concerning the primaly outcome ofPPPD,
immediate PO morbidity was reported in t3 patients for afrequency of 59.1%;tbn::epatimts (13.6%) developed biliary fistula., 4 patients (18.2%) developed wound infection and 6 patients (27.2%)developed DGE.InhaDdwith these figures of PO morbidity, K.wok et aV re.IJOited that post-cperati.ve moroidity rate was SS%and included intra-abdominal collections (17%),major hemonbage (l0.7%), pancreatic anastomotic le;Wsge (9%) and delayed gastric emptying (22%).Zureikat et aLto reported an overall complications rate of SO%.
Six patients had delayed gastric emptying for a frequency of27.3% and mean duration
of hospital stay for such morbidity ofabout 12 days. Multiple studies tried to explore underlying factors and propose lines for
prevemionandlormanagement ofOOE. Malleo
et af.ll reported DGE frequency of 13.8%
among their series of 260 patients underwent PPPD and found abdominal collections, pancreatic fistulae and sepsis were associated
with clinically relevant DGE, but pancreatic andbiliary fistulawere independeotriskfiu:tors for development of DGE. Kurahara et af.t2 reported an incidem:e ofDGE of34.8% with PPPD and 13% with subtotal stomach preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy with significantly shorter duration of hospital stay. Kawai et al.13 found pylorus-resecting
pm;reaticoduodeectomy significantly reduces the incidence ofDGE compared with PPPD. Gangavatikcr et af.l4 evaluated the effect of ante<:olic versus retrocolic reconstruction on DGE and found no significant difference in the incidence of DGE in the antecolic vs.the retrocolic group (34.4% vs. 27.8%) and concluded that the incidence ofDGE does not appear to be related to the method of reconstruction.
No patient developed pancreatic fistula, this could be attributed to the applied procedural modification in the form of extracorporeal
pancn:atic drainage through a catheter passed throughtbe pancreatic duct prior to anastomosis of pancreatic stump to the jejunum , then was extracted through a distant jejunal stab Sllll'OUDded by purse stringsuture and the distal end of the catheter was extracted through a separate skin stab, so all efflux of pancreatic duct was drained out of the jejunum, giving time for anastomotic line healing andprotecting it from exposure to pancreatic enzymes. In hand with the personal trials for avoiding pancreatic fistula, Mita et af.ls found the use of TachoComb fibrin adhesive as a sealing method in duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojujeunostomy is safe, reliable for the prevention of pancreatic fistula, and shows promise for all types of reconstruction following pancreaticoduodenectomy.
The obtained results illustrated the reasibility
Ain-Sham:sJ SllTg2012;S(J):SJJ-540
and safety ofPPPD with reasonable operative time and intraoperative blood loss and hospitalization time. In hand with these data; Tani et al.16 evaluated the outcomes of PD and PPPD for pancreatic cancer and found that surgical outcomes and incidence of postoperative complications suggest that PPPD is an appropriate surgical procedure for pancreatic adenocarcinoma with significantly better cause-specific survival of the PPPD patients than that of the PD patients. Also, Alsaif17 documented that in the context of operative factors like blood loss and operation time, complications such as DGE and anastomotic leaks, and the impact on quality of life and survival, PPPD was found to be at least as good as classic PD, if not better in some aspects. In support of feasibility and safety, various studies tried it for management of unusual types of cases; Souzaki et ai.IS presented a case of a 6-year-old female with advanced pancreatoblastoma treated successfully by PPPD after induction chemotherapy, radiation and stem cell transplantation. Fragulidis et ai.19 presented a case of PPPD for pancreatic head cancer, 13 years after a transhiatal esophagectomy, sparing the gastric tube and the right gastroepiploic artery and vein and concluded that PPPD is less time-consuming and less invasive, since no further reconstruction of the alimentary tract or the vascular system is applied.
Throughout mean duration of follow-up of
31.1±9.1; the 2-year survival rate was 82.6%, the 3-year survival rate was 39.1% and the 4- year survival rate of 13%. These figures are coincident with that presented in literature; Chakravarty et al.2o reported that the overall
1- and 3-year survival rates of patients undergoing PD/PPPD were 50.0% and 16.7%, and 44.4% and 12.2%, respectively.However, the reported survival duration was longer than that reported by Peros et al.21 who documented that major pancreatic resections can be performed safely, with acceptable morbidity and mortality and good long-term results, even in middle-volume centers with median survival for the whole group of patients of 17 months. These data also go in hand with that previously reported in reviews of randomized controlled studies which showed that postoperative mortality was not significantly different after
both types of operations, but quality of life was reported to be in favor of the pylorus preserving Whipple operation.6-8,22
The reported results and review of literature allowed to conclude that PPPD could be considered as a safe, feasible and effective surgical modality for patients having pancreatic tumors with controllable PO morbidity and PO survival for >4 years in 13%.
References:
1- Edwards BK, Howe HL, Ries LA, et al: Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973-1999, featuring implications of age and aging on U.S. cancer burden. Cancer 2002; 94: 2766-2792.
2- Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, et al: Cancer
statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;
55: 10-30.
3-Kopchak VM, Kopchak KV, Duvalko AV, Zelinski!AI, Shevkolenko GG, Borisov BV, Romaniv IaV, Domnich AN: Pancreaticoduodenal resection in the treatment of malignant periampullar tumors. Klin Khir 2011; (1): 21-26.
4- Richter A, Niedergethmann M, Sturm JW,
et al: Long-term results of partial pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head:
25-year experience. World J Surg 2003;
27: 324-329.
5- Kawai M, Yamaue H: Analysis of clinical trials evaluating complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A new era of pancreatic surgery. Surg Today 2010;
40(11): 1011-1017.
6- Diener MK, Knaebel HP, Heukaufer C, Antes G, Behler MW, Seiler CM: A systematic review and meta-analysis of pylorus-preserving versus classical pancreaticoduodenectomy for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. Ann Surg 2007; 245(2): 187-
200.
7- Diener MK, Heukaeufer C, Schwarzer G, Seiler CM, Antes G, Knaebel HP, Bii.chler MW: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) versus pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 2: CD006053.
8- Diener MK, Fitzmaurice C, Schwarzer G, Seiler CM, Antes G, Knaebel HP, Buchler MW: Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 5: CD006053.
9- Kwok KH, Rizk: J, Coleman M, Fenton-Lee
D: Pancreaticoduodenectomy - outcomes from an Australian institution. ANZJSurg
2010; 80(9): 605-608.
10-Zureikat AH, Nguyen KT, Bartlett DL, Zeh HJ, Moser AJ: Robotic-assisted major pancreatic resection and reconstruction. Arch Surg 2011; 146(3): 256-261.
11-Malleo G, Crippa S, Butturini G, Salvia R, Partelli S, Rossini R, Bacchion M, Pederzoli P, Bassi C: Delayed gastric emptying after pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: Validation of International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery classification and analysis of risk factors. HPB (Oxford) 2010; 12(9): 610-
618.
12-Kurahara H, Takao S, Shinchi H, Mataki Y, Maemura K, Sakoda M, Ueno S, Natsugoe S: Subtotal stomach-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (SSPPD) prevents postoperative delayed gastric emptying. J Surg Onco/2010; 102(6): 615-
619.
13-Kawai M, Tani M, Hirono S, Miyazawa M, Shimizu A, Uchiyama K, Yamaue H: Pylorus ring resection reduces delayed gastric emptying in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of pylorus resecting versus pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 2011;
253(3): 495-501.
14-Gangavatiker R, PalS, Javed A, Dash NR, Sahni P, Chattopadhyay TK: Effect of antecolic or retrocolic reconstruction of the gastro/duodenojejunostomy on delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A randomized controlled trial.JGastrointest Surg 2011;
15(5): 843-852.
15-Mita K, Ito H, Fukumoto M, Murabayashi R, Koizumi K, Hayashi T, Kikuchi H: Pancreaticojejunostomy using a fibrin adhesive sealant (TachoComb) for the prevention of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy . Hepatogastroenterology 2011; 58(105):
187-191.
16-Tani M, Kawai M, Hirono S, Ina S, Miyazawa M, Fujita Y, Uchiyama K, Yamaue H: Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy versus conventional pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Surg Today
2009; 39(3): 219-224.
17-Alsaif F: Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy for peri ampullary carcinoma, is it a good option? SaudiJGastroentero/2010; 16(2): 75-78.
18-Souzaki R, Tajiri T, Kinoshita Y, Tanaka S, Koga Y, Suminoe A, Hara T, Kohashi K, Oda Y, Taguchi T: Successful treatment of advanced pancreatoblastoma by a pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy after radiation and high-dose chemotherapy. Pediatr Surg Int 2010; 26(10): 1045-1048.
19-Fragulidis GP, Athanasopoulos PG,
Melemeni A, Chondrogiannis KD, Nastos K, Koutoulidis V, Polydorou A: Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy after transhiatal esophagectomy sparing the right gastroepiploic vessels and gastric tube. J Gastrointest Surg 2011; 15(2): 367-370.
20-Chakravarty KD, Hsu JT, Liu KH, Yeh CN, Yeh TS, Hwang TL, Jan YY, Chen MF: Prognosis and feasibility of en-bloc vascular resection in stage II pancreatic adenocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol
2010; 16(8): 997-1002.
21-Peros G, Giannopoulos GA, Christodoulou S, Konstantoudakis G, Petropoulou K, Sakorafas GH: Good results after major pancreatic resections in a middle-volume center. Pancreas 2010; 39(3): 411-414.
22-Fitzmaurice C, Seiler CM, Behler MW, Diener MK: Survival, mortality and quality oflife after pylorus-preserving or classical Whipple operation. A systematic review with meta-analysis. Chirurg 2010; 81{5):
454-471.