4.2 Review

Pancreatectomy with synchronous vascular resection - An argument in favour

Publisher

ROYAL COLLEGE SURGEONS EDINBURGH
DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2011.12.001

Keywords

Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Portal vein and superior mesenteric vein resection; Arterial resection; Pancreatic cancer

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [MR/J006742/1] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Medical Research Council [MR/J006742/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The first case-series of pancreatectomy with synchronous en-bloc vascular resection with the aim to improve pancreatic cancer survival was published in 1977. Advances in surgical techniques, intensive care management and teaching centers with high volume cases have dramatically reduced mortality and morbidity of major pancreatic resections. This has led to a progressively wider use of venous and/or arterial resections during pancreatic surgery in selected patients to achieve negative resection margins. Methods: We review the current literature and discuss our experience in pancreatectomies with en-bloc vascular resections. Results: Survival of patients with pancreatic cancer who undergo an R0 resection with venous reconstruction is comparable to those who have a standard pancreaticoduodenectomy with no added mortality or morbidity. Conversely, arterial resection is associated with a higher morbidity, mortality and overall poorer survival, perhaps reflecting more advanced disease. Conclusions: Since the need for vascular resection may not be always apparent on preoperative imaging, surgeons who perform major pancreatic surgery should be familiar with vascular resection and reconstruction techniques in order to offer to these patients the best chance to prolong survival. (C) 2011 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available