Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resections in Experimental Setting and Clinical Practice
Authors:
F. Čečka; A. Ferko; B. Jon; Z. Šubrt *
Authors‘ workplace:
Chirurgická klinika Fakultní nemocnice Hradec Králové a Lékařské fakulty UK v Hradci Králové, přednosta kliniky: prof. MUDr. A. Ferko, CSc.
; Katedra válečné chirurgie, Fakulta vojenského zdravotnictví, Univerzita Obrany Brno, vedoucí katedry: doc. MUDr. L. Klein, CSc.
*
Published in:
Rozhl. Chir., 2011, roč. 90, č. 3, s. 194-199.
Category:
Monothematic special - Original
Overview
Introduction:
Pancreatic fistula is a major postoperative complication after pancreatic resection. One of the main risk factors of developing the pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy is the method employed for the management of the pancreatic remnant.
Aim of the study:
The aim of the experimental part of this work was to test a novel method of management of the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy on a large laboratory animal. Furthemore, based on the experience with the experimental work to introduce the laparoscopic approach to human clinical practice.
Methods:
In the experimental part of the work laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with spleen and splenic vessels preservation was performed in ten female domestic pigs. The experimental animals were divided into two groups. In the first group the pancreas was transected using an EndoGIA Universal Stapler and in the second group, the pancreas was transected using a Ligasure device and the pancreatic remnant was reinforced with hydrogel sealant Pleuraseal.
We introduced the laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy to clinical practice in the Department of Surgery in Hradec Králové in 2009. Transection of the pancreas was performed with staplers.
Results:
In the experimental part of the work the postoperative course was uneventful in all the animals. All animals gained weight. Only minor macroscopic and microscopic alterations of the healing process were found. Statistical differences between the groups were not significant.
In the clinical part of the work we performed laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in 6 patients. We performed two distal pancreatectomies with splenectomy, one distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy and left nephrectomy and 3 distal pancreatectomies with the spleen and splenic vessels preservation. We did not have to convert to open procedure in any of the cases.
Conclusions:
In the experimental part of the work we showed that the novel technique using Ligasure transection reinforced by the hydrogel sealant Pleuraseal is feasible and safe technique, which seems to be comparable with the standard transection technique using stapler.
Our initial experience with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in the clinical practice cannot be used to compare various methods of management of the pancreatic stump or to evaluate the rate of pancreatic fistula in such small group of patients.
Key words:
laparoscopic pancreatic resection – experimental surgery – pancreatic fistula – Ligasure – Pleuraseal
Sources
1. Winter, J. M., Cameron, J. L., Campbell, K. A., et al.: 1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: A single-institution experience. J. Gastrointest. Surg., 2006; 10: 1199–1210.
2. Kleeff, J., Diener, M. K., Z_aggen, K., et al. Distal pancreatectomy: risk factors for surgical failure in 302 consecutive cases. Ann. Surg., 2007; 245: 573–582.
3. Goh, B. K., Tan, Y. M., Chung, Y. F., et al. Critical appraisal of 232 consecutive distal pancreatectomies with emphasis on risk factors, outcome, and management of the postoperative pancreatic fistula: a 21-year experience at a single institution. Arch. Surg., 2008; 143: 956–965.
4. Dindo, D., Demartines, N., Clavien, P. A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann. Surg., 2004; 240: 205–213.
5. Bassi, C., Dervenis, C., Butturini, G., et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery, 2005; 138: 8–13.
6. Balcom, J. H. T., Rattner, D. W., Warshaw, A. L., et al. Ten-year experience with 733 pancreatic resections: changing indications, older patients, and decreasing length of hospitalization. Arch. Surg., 2001; 136: 391–398.
7. Bassi, C., Butturini, G., Molinari, E., et al. Pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatic resection. The importance of definitions. Dig. Surg., 2004; 21: 54–59.
8. Yeo, C. J., Cameron, J. L., Lillemoe, K. D., et al. Does prophylactic octreotide decrease the rates of pancreatic fistula and other complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized placebo-controlled trial. Ann. Surg., 2000; 232: 419–429.
9. Sosa, J. A., Bowman, H. M., Gordon, T. A., et al. Importance of hospital volume in the overall management of pancreatic cancer. Ann. Surg., 1998; 228: 429–438.
10. Pierce, R. A., Spitler, J. A., Hawkins, W. G., et al. Outcomes analysis of laparoscopic resection of pancreatic neoplasms. Surg. Endosc., 2007; 21: 579–586.
11. Eom, B. W., Jang, J. Y., Lee, S. E., et al. Clinical outcomes compared between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. Surg. Endosc., 2008; 22: 1334–1338.
12. Kim, S. C., Park, K. T., Hwang, J. W., et al. Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and open distal pancreatic resection at a single institution. Surg. Endosc., 2008; 22: 2261–2268.
13. Velanovich, V. Case-control comparison of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy. J. Gastrointest. Surg., 2006; 10: 95–98.
14. Finan, K. R., Cannon, E. E., Kim, E. J., et al. Laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy: a comparison of outcomes. Am. Surg., 2009; 75: 671–679.
15. Dinorcia, J., Schrope, B. A., Lee, M. K., et al. Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Offers Shorter Hospital Stays with Fewer Complications. J. Gastrointest. Surg., 2010; 14: 1065–1070.
16. Vijan, S. S., Ahmed, K. A., Harmsen, W. S., et al. Laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution comparative study. Arch. Surg., 2010; 145: 616–621.
17. Kooby, D. A., Gillespie, T., Bentrem, D., et al. Left-sided pancreatectomy: a multicenter comparison of laparoscopic and open approaches. Ann. Surg., 2008; 248: 438–446.
18. Takaori, K.,Tanigawa, N. Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: the past, present, and future. Surg. Today, 2007; 37: 535–545.
19. Takao, S., Shinchi, H., Maemura, K., et al. Ultrasonically activated scalpel is an effective tool for cutting the pancreas in biliary-pancreatic surgery: experimental and clinical studies. J. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Surg., 2000; 7: 58–62.
20. Balcom, J. H. T., Keck, T., Warshaw, A. L., et al. Prevention of pancreatic fistula with a new synthetic, absorbable sealant: evaluation in a dog model. J. Am. Coll. Surg., 2002; 195: 490–496.
21. Truty, M. J., Sawyer, M. D., Que, F. G. Decreasing pancreatic leak after distal pancreatectomy: saline-coupled radiofrequency ablation in a porcine model. J. Gastrointest. Surg., 2007; 11: 998–1007.
22. Chamberlain, R. S., Korvick, D., Mootoo, M., et al. Can harmonic focus curved shear effectively seal the pancreatic ducts and prevent pancreatic leak? Feasibility evaluation and testing in ex vivo and in vivo porcine models. J. Surg. Res., 2009; 157: 279–283.
23. Hartwig, W., Duckheim, M., Strobel, O., et al. LigaSure for Pancreatic Sealing During Distal Pancreatectomy. World J. Surg., 2010; 34: 1066–1070.
24. Sheng, S. R., Wang, X. Y., Xu, H. Z., et al. Anatomy of large animal spines and its comparison to the human spine: a systematic review. Eur. Spine J., 2010; 19: 46–56.
25. Ferko, A., Krajina, A., Jon, B., et al. Juxtarenal aortic aneurysm: endoluminal transfemoral repair? Eur. Radiol., 1997; 7: 703–707.
26. Del Castillo Dejardin, D., Sabench Pereferrer, F., et al. The evolution of experimental surgery in the field of morbid obesity. Obes. Surg., 2004; 14: 1263–1272.
27. Motyčka, P., Ferko, A., Šubrt, Z., et al. Diverting ileostomy set removable without laparotomy – feasibility study. Eur. Surg. Res., 2006; 38: 365–369.
28. Šubrt, Z., Ferko, A., Hoffmann, P., et al. Temporary liver blood-outflow occlusion increases effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation: an experimental study on pigs. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol., 2008; 34: 346–352.
29. Dehoux, J. P.,Gianello, P. The importance of large animal models in transplantation. Front. Biosci., 2007; 12: 4864–4880.
30. Lomas-Niera, J. L., Perl, M., Chung, C. S., et al. Shock and hemorrhage: an overview of animal models. Shock, 2005; 24: 33–39.
31. Bohm, B.,Milsom, J. W. Animal models as educational tools in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg. Endosc., 1994; 8: 707–713.
Labels
Surgery Orthopaedics Trauma surgeryArticle was published in
Perspectives in Surgery
2011 Issue 3
Most read in this issue
- The Quality of Life Following Laparoscopic Fundoplication in Correlation with Preoperative Symptomatology
- Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Neuroendocrine Pancreatic Tumors – Initial Experience
- Impact of Postoperative Complications on Survival of Patients with Pancreatic Carcinoma
- Laparoscopic Treatment of Large Intestinal Injuries during Colonoscopy