4.1 Article

Laparoscopic Hand-Assisted Parenchymal-Sparing Resections for Presumed Side-Branch Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/lap.2014.0669

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The diagnosis of side-branch intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IMPNs) is increasingly more common, but their appropriate management is still evolving. We recently began performing laparoscopic hand-assisted enucleation or duodenal-sparing pancreatic head resection for these lesions with vigilant postoperative imaging. Materials and Methods: Seventeen patients with pancreatic cystic lesions were included in this single-center retrospective review from January 1, 2008 to March 30, 2013. Indication for surgical intervention was growth in size of the cyst, symptoms, cyst size >3 cm, and/or presence of a mural nodule. Twelve patients underwent laparoscopic hand-assisted enucleation, and 5 patients underwent laparoscopic hand-assisted pancreatic head resection. Results: The mean age of patients was 64 years old. The most common presenting symptom was abdominal pain. The indication for surgical intervention was growth in the cyst or symptoms in the majority of patients. Fourteen lesions were in the head/uncinate, two were in the pancreatic body, and one was in the tail. Final pathology was consistent with side-branch IPMN in 13 patients (1 with focal adenocarcinoma). Three patients had serous cysts, and 1 had a mucinous cyst. Three patients developed pancreatic leaks, which were controlled with intraoperative placed drains, whereas 1 patient required additional drain placement. Median time from surgery to latest follow-up imaging is over 2 years. No patients have developed recurrent cysts or adenocarcinoma. Conclusions: Duodenal-sparing pancreatic head resection or pancreatic enucleation for patients with presumed side-branch IPMN is a safe and efficacious option, in terms of both operative outcomes and postoperative recurrence risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据