Bernon M.M.,HPB Surgical Unit |
Bernon M.M.,University of Cape Town |
Krige J.E.J.,HPB Surgical Unit |
Krige J.E.J.,University of Cape Town |
And 7 more authors.
South African Journal of Surgery | Year: 2016
Background: Bleeding after a major pancreatic resection, although uncommon, has serious implications and substantial mortality rates. Aim: To analyse our experience with severe post-pancreatoduodenectomy haemorrhage (PPH) over the last 7 years to establish the incidence, causes, intervention required and outcome. Methods: All patients who underwent a pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) between January 2008 and December 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Data analysed included demographic information, operative details, anastomotic technique, histology, postoperative complications including pancreatic fistula and PPH, length of hospital stay, need for blood products and special investigations. Pancreatic fistula was classified according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) classification. A modified ISGPS classification was used for PPH. Results: One hundred and eighteen patients underwent PD during the study period of whom 6 (5.0%) died perioperatively. Twenty patients (16.9%) developed a pancreatic fistula and 11 patients (9.3%) had a severe PPH of whom one (9.1%) died. No patients had a severe bleed during the first 24 hours postoperatively. Four patients bled within the first 5 days and the remaining 7 after five days. Six patients bled from the gastroduodenal artery and were all preceded by a pancreatic fistula. Three of the 7 patients who bled late presented with extraluminal bleeding, 3 presented with intraluminal bleeding and 1 with a combination of both. Patients presenting in the first 5 days were all successfully managed either endoscopically or surgically. Five patients who presented beyond 5 days postoperatively were managed primarily with interventional angiography, either with coiling or deployment of a covered stent. Three patients who had radiological intervention developed a liver abscess or necrosis. Conclusion: Severe PPH is associated with substantial morbidity. Clinical factors including the onset of the bleeding, presentation with either extra and/or intraluminal haemorrhage, and the presence of a pancreatic fistula give an indication of the likely aetiology of the bleeding. A management algorithm based on these factors is presented. © 2016, South African Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Spampinato M.G.,HPB Surgical Unit |
Coratti A.,Misericordia Hospital |
Bianco L.,Misericordia Hospital |
Caniglia F.,University of Pisa |
And 4 more authors.
Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques | Year: 2014
Background: Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH), although safely feasible in experienced hands and in selected patients, is a formidable challenge because of the technical demands of controlling hemorrhage, sealing bile ducts, avoiding gas embolism, and maintaining oncologic surgical principles. The enhanced surgical dexterity offered by robotic assistance could improve feasibility and/or safety of minimally invasive major hepatectomy. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes of LMH and robotic-assisted major hepatectomy (RMH).Methods: Pooled data from four Italian hepatobiliary centers were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic data, operative, and postoperative outcomes were collected from prospectively maintained databases and compared.Results: Between January 2009 and December 2012, 25 patients underwent LMH and 25 RMH. The two groups were comparable for all baseline characteristics including type of resection and underlying pathology. Conversion to open surgery was required in one patient in each group (4 %). No difference was noted in operative time, estimated blood, and need for allogenic blood transfusions. Intermittent pedicle occlusion was required only in LMH (32 % vs. 0; p = 0.004). Length of hospital stay, including time spent in intensive care unit, was similar between the two groups, but patients undergoing LMH showed quicker recovery of bowel activity, with shorter time to first flatus (1 vs. 3 days; p = 0.023) and earlier tolerance to oral liquid diet (1 vs. 2 days; p = 0.001). No difference was noted in complication rate, 90-day mortality, and readmission rate.Conclusions: This retrospective multi-institution study confirms that selected patients can safely undergo minimally invasive major hepatectomy, either LMH or RMH. The fact that intermittent pedicle occlusion could be avoided in RMH suggests improved surgical ability to deal with bleeding during liver transection, but further studies are needed before any final conclusion can be drawn. © 2014, Springer Science+Business Media New York.