Reoperative pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary carcinoma

We have noted a continued increase in the number of patients referred to our institution for presumed or biopsy-proven periampullary carcinoma following an “exploratory” laparotomy during which tumor resection was not performed. Although previous work has demonstrated the safety of reoperative pancr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The American journal of surgery 1996-11, Vol.172 (5), p.432-438
Main Authors: Robinson, Emily K., Lee, Jeffrey E., Lowy, Andrew M., Fenoglio, Claudia J., Pisters, Peter W.T., Evans, Douglas B.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Ampulla of Vater - surgery
Biopsy
Cancer
Carcinoma
Common Bile Duct Neoplasms - surgery
Complications
Computed tomography
Humans
Laparotomy
Malignancy
Medical imaging
Morbidity
Neoplasms
Pancreatic cancer
Pancreatic Neoplasms - surgery
Pancreaticoduodenectomy
Reoperation
Surgery
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:We have noted a continued increase in the number of patients referred to our institution for presumed or biopsy-proven periampullary carcinoma following an “exploratory” laparotomy during which tumor resection was not performed. Although previous work has demonstrated the safety of reoperative pancreati-coduodenectomy PD), the need to avoid non-therapeutic laparotomy in these patients is obvious. In the current study, we sought to determine why PD was not performed at the initial operation. Using the prospective pancreatic cancer database, we identified all patients who underwent reoperative PD at our institution between June 1990 and October 1995. Radiologic imaging prior to reoperation was standardized and based on thin-section, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT); helical CT was used in more recent cases. Pathologic data were obtained, and initial outside operative reports were reviewed to determine why a PD was not performed at the initial procedure. Twenty-nine patients underwent reoperative PD. Resection was not performed at the initial laparotomy because of the surgeon's assessment of local unresectability (17 patients), lack of a tissue diagnosis of malignancy (9), misdiagnoses (2), and error in intraoperative management (1). In the 17 patients deemed to have unresectable disease, successful reoperative PD required vascular resection in 10. All 10 of these patients had resection with negative microscopic margins of excision. Of the 9 patients who did not have resection owing to diagnostic uncertainty, all 9 had undergone multiple intraoperative biopsies interpreted as negative for malignancy; 6 of 9 had carcinoma confirmed on permanent-section analysis of the biopsy specimens. Four patients suffered major complications from intraoperative large-needle biopsy. Detailed preoperative imaging and a clearly defined operative plan would have allowed successful resection at the initial operation in 27 of 29 patients who underwent reoperative PD. Avoidable patient morbidity and the cost of unnecessary surgery argue strongly against “exploratory” surgery in patients with presumed periampullary neoplasms.
ISSN:0002-9610
1879-1883
DOI:10.1016/S0002-9610(96)00218-8