• RCCSE中国核心学术期刊(A+)
  • 中国百强报刊
  • 百种中国杰出学术期刊
  • 中国精品科技期刊
  • 中国高校百佳科技期刊
  • 中国自然科学类核心期刊
  • 中国科技论文统计源期刊
  • 中华医学会优秀期刊
  • 中国精品科技期刊顶尖学术论文(5000)项目来源期刊
  • 入选中国高质量科技期刊分级目录(消化病学)T1级
  • 入选《中国学术期刊影响因子年报(自然科学与工程技术)》Q1区
  • 入选《科技期刊世界影响力指数(WJCI)报告(2022)》
  • RCCSE中国核心学术期刊(A+)
  • 中国百强报刊
  • 百种中国杰出学术期刊
  • 中国精品科技期刊
  • 中国高校百佳科技期刊
  • 中国自然科学类核心期刊
  • 中国科技论文统计源期刊
  • 中华医学会优秀期刊
  • 中国精品科技期刊顶尖学术论文(5000)项目来源期刊
  • 入选中国高质量科技期刊分级目录(消化病学)T1级
  • 入选《中国学术期刊影响因子年报(自然科学与工程技术)》Q1区
  • 入选《科技期刊世界影响力指数(WJCI)报告(2022)》
Xu Dong, Jiang Kuirong, Lu Zipeng, et al. Clinical effect of radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for carcinoma of pancreatic body and tail[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2016, 15(6): 567-573. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2016.06.010
Citation: Xu Dong, Jiang Kuirong, Lu Zipeng, et al. Clinical effect of radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for carcinoma of pancreatic body and tail[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2016, 15(6): 567-573. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2016.06.010

Clinical effect of radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for carcinoma of pancreatic body and tail

More Information
  • Objective:To explore the safety and feasibility of radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) for carcinoma of pancreatic body and tail (CPBT).
    Methods:The retrospective cohort study was adopted. The clinical data of 99 patients with CPBT who were admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from January 2013 to October 2015 were collected. Among the 99 patients, 21 receiving RAMPS were allocated into the RAMPS group and 78 receiving traditional resection of body and tail of pancreas and splenectomy were allocated into the operation group. Observation indexes included (1) surgical situation: operation time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, volume of blood transfusion, combined organ resection, combined vascular resection, status of the resection margin, (2) postoperative situation: overall complications, major postoperative complications [pancreatic fistula, chyle leakage, abdominal bleeding, hemorrhage of digestive tract, delayed gastric emptying, pleural effusion, pulmonary infection, peritoneal effusion, abdominal infection, wound infection, deep venous thrombosis in the lower limbs, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS)], reoperation, duration of hospital stay, hospital expenses, (3) followup: the postoperative survival of patients, tumor recurrence and metastasis. The followup using outpatient examination and telephone interview was performed to detect the patients′ survival and tumor recurrence and metastasis up to March 2016. Measurement data with normal distribution were presented as ±s and comparison between groups was evaluated with the Student t test. Measurement data with skewed distribution were presented as M(Qn) and comparison between groups was evaluated with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Count data were analyzed using the chisquare test or Fisher exact probability. The survival time was calculated by the KaplanMeier method.
    Results:(1) Surgical situation: operation time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, volume of blood transfusion and number of patients combined with organ resection were 235 minutes (180 minutes, 278 minutes), 400 mL (350 mL, 650 mL), 3.1 U (2.5 U , 5.6 U), 13 in the RAMPS group and 180 minutes (130 minutes, 210 minutes), 225 mL (200 mL, 400 mL), 0 (0, 2.0 U), 10 in the operation group, respectively, with statistically significant differences between the 2 groups (Z=3.529, 2.675, 3.389, P<0.05). The number of patients with R0 resection and R1 resection were 19, 2 in the RAMPS group and 71, 7 in the operation group, showing no statistically significant difference (P>0.05). (2) Postoperative situation: number of patients with overall complications, pancreatic fistula in grade A, pancreatic fistula in grade B, pancreatic fistula in grade C, chyle leakage, abdominal bleeding, hemorrhage of digestive tract, delayed gastric emptying, pleural effusion, pulmonary infection, peritoneal effusion, abdominal infection, wound infection, deep venous thrombosis in the lower limbs, MODS and reoperation were 16, 6, 5, 2, 1, 1, 0, 1, 7, 0, 6, 4, 1, 0, 0, 0 in the RAMPS group and 48, 15, 19, 2, 5, 4, 2, 1, 18, 4, 15, 5, 1, 2, 1, 1 in the operation group, respectively, with no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups (χ2=1.554, 1.642, P>0.05). The duration of hospital stay and hospital expenses were 15 days (13 days, 23 days), 74 632 Yuan (67 041 Yuan , 92 445 Yuan) in the RAMPS group and 12 days (10 days, 16 days), 64 410 Yuan (54 709 Yuan, 80 842 Yuan) in the operation group, respectively, showing statistically significant differences between the 2 groups (Z=3.529, 2.675, P<0.05). (3) Followup: among 99 patients, 86 were followed up for a median time of 18 months (range, 5-37 months), including 18 patients in the RAMPS group and 68 patients in the operation group. The median survival time and rate of recurrence and metastasis were 19 months, 33.3%(6/18) in the RAMPS group and 14 months, 45.6%(31/68) in the operation group, respectively, with no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (χ2=0.060, 0.366, P>0.05).
    Conclusion:RAMPS in the treatment of CPBT is safe and feasible, and it could not increase the incidence of complications, however, enhance the R0resection rate compared with traditional resection of body and tail of pancreas and splenectomy.

  • Related Articles

    [1]Tan Chunlu, Chen Hongyu, Li Kezhou, Zhang Hao, Liu Xubao. Clinical efficacy of radical resection with individualized surgical approach for borderline resectable pancreatic head carcinoma[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2019, 18(7): 662-667. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2019.07.010
    [2]Hong Qingqi, Yang Li#, Li Zhengrong, Yan Su, Zhang Wenbin, Fan Lin, Wang Wei, Zhang Jian, Zhu Jiaming, Ji Gang, Zhao Yongliang, You Jun.. Influence of body configuration on the therapeutic effects of totally laparoscopic and laparoscopy-assisted radical total gastrectomies: a multicentre retrospective study (A report of 677 cases)[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2018, 17(1): 60-67. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2018.01.016
    [3]Wen Tianfu, Cui Yunfu.. Updates of radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy applied to the surgical treatment for pancreatic carcinoma of body and tail[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2016, 15(6): 641-644. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2016.06.022
    [4]Chen Jie, Shang Changzhen, Chen Yajin.. Spleen and splenic vessels preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatomy for the treatment of pancreatic cystic tumor of body and tail[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2015, 14(8): 673-676. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2015.08.017
    [5]Cui Peng*, Huang Ling, Pan Yuguo, Xia Jintang. Clinical efficacies of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with laparoscopic splenectomy for the treatment of 〖JP2〗malignant tumor in the body and tail of pancreas[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2015, 14(8): 640-643. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2015.08.010
    [6]CUI Yun fu, WANG Zhi dong, ZHONG Xiang yu, KANG Peng cheng. Radical pancreaticoduodenectomy via mesenteric approach[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2013, 12(8): 608-611. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673 9752.2013.08.012
    [7]DING Bo wen *, ZHANG Ti, CUI Yun long, LI Hui kai, DING Shou cheng, LI Qiang. Prognostic factors of carcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2013, 12(8): 564-568. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673 9752.2013.08.002
    [8]ZHU Feng, QIN Ren yi. Prior selective arteriovenous treatment in radical pancreaticoduodenectomy[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2012, 11(4): 355-358. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2012.04.016
    [9]XIANG Guang ming, TAN Chun lu, MAI Gang, LIU Xu bao. Efficacies of extended and standard radical pancreatoduodenectomy[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2011, 10(5): 347-350.
    [10]GE Chun lin, GUO Ke jian, GUO Ren xuan, TIAN Yu lin. Retrograde distal pancreatectomy of pancreas tumor[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, 2007, 6(4): 258-260.

Catalog

    Article views (9292) PDF downloads (0) Cited by()

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return