Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_734_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Disclaimer
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Embryology
- •Lymphatics
- •Nerves
- •Clinically Relevant Anatomic Variations
- •Duodenum Inversum
- •Pancreas Divisum
- •Annular Pancreas
- •Ectopic Pancreas
- •Ansa Pancreatica
- •Pancreaticobiliary Maljunction
- •Duplication Anomalies
- •Physiology
- •Duodenal Physiology
- •Mechanical Function
- •Endocrine Function
- •Pancreatic Physiology
- •Exocrine Physiology
- •Normal Anatomy
- •Duodenal Anatomy
- •Pancreatic Anatomy
- •Ductal Anatomy
- •Vasculature
- •Endocrine Physiology
- •References
- •Etiology
- •Pathophysiology
- •Diagnosis
- •Clinical Presentation
- •Laboratory Tests
- •Imaging
- •Medical Management
- •Fluid Resuscitation
- •Analgesics
- •Prophylactic Antibiotics
- •Nutrition
- •Complications
- •Long-Term Sequelae of Acute Pancreatitis
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Initial Treatment
- •Reducing Severity of Acute Pancreatitis
- •Fluid Resuscitation
- •Pain Management
- •Nutrition
- •Preventing Infectious Complications
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Sterile Pancreatic Necrosis
- •Antibiotic Therapy
- •Catheter Drainage
- •Video-Assisted Retroperitoneal Drainage (VARD) Procedure
- •Sinus Tract Necrosectomy
- •Open Necrosectomy
- •Open Trans-Gastric Cystogastrostomy
- •Disconnected Distal Pancreatic Duct Syndrome
- •Introduction
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Venous Thrombosis
- •Intra-Abdominal Hypertension
- •Thoracic Complications
- •Gastrointestinal Complications
- •References
- •Pain
- •Endocrine Dysfunction
- •Exocrine Dysfunction
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Background
- •Postoperative Care
- •References
- •Background
- •Head-Dominant Disease
- •Tail-Dominant Disease
- •Perioperative Management
- •Procedure Steps
- •Open Whipple
- •MIS Whipple
- •Open Distal Pancreatectomy
- •MIS Distal Pancreatectomy
- •Pearls
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Procedures
- •Indications
- •Contraindications
- •Preoperative Workup
- •Pediatrics
- •Patient Selection
- •Contraindications
- •Key Steps
- •Common Steps
- •Pitfalls/Tricks
- •Local Complications
- •Systemic Complications
- •References
- •History/Introduction
- •Indications
- •Adults
- •Procedural Aspects
- •Preoperative Care
- •Total Pancreatectomy
- •Islet Infusion
- •Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS)
- •Postoperative Care
- •Outcomes
- •Perioperative Data
- •Perioperative Complications
- •Endocrine Function
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Duodenal Adenomas
- •Duodenal Adenocarcinomas
- •Duodenal Neuroendocrine Tumors (D-NETs)
- •Other Non-neoplastic Epithelial Lesions
- •Duodenal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (DGISTs)
- •Leiomyoma
- •Lipoma
- •Choledochal Cysts
- •Duodenal Lymphoma
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Pre-procedural Considerations
- •Indications
- •Resection Techniques
- •Sporadic Non-ampullary Adenomas: Cold Snare Polypectomy
- •Sporadic Non-ampullary Adenomas: EMR
- •Sporadic Non-ampullary Adenomas: ESD
- •Sporadic Non-ampullary Adenomas: Full-Thickness Resection Device
- •Ampullary Adenomas: Endoscopic Papillectomy
- •Sporadic Non-ampullary Adenomas: Cold Snare Polypectomy
- •Sporadic Non-ampullary Adenomas: EMR
- •Endoscopic Papillectomy
- •Surveillance
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Benign Tumors
- •Genetic Syndromes
- •Pre-Malignant Tumors
- •Low-Grade Malignancies
- •Alternatives
- •Inclusion Criteria
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Open Transduodenal Ampullectomy
- •Minimally Invasive (Robotic-Assisted) Transduodenal Ampullectomy
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Laparoscopic Segmental Duodenectomy
- •Robotic Segmental Duodenectomy
- •Technique
- •Open Segmental Duodenectomy
- •Patient Positioning
- •Technique
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Overview
- •Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm (IPMN)
- •General Concepts
- •Novel Biomarkers
- •DNA-Based Biomarkers
- •MiRNA
- •Protein-Based Biomarkers
- •IPMNs
- •MCNs
- •SCNs
- •SPTs
- •Guidelines
- •Surveillance Discontinuation
- •Follow-Up Strategy
- •The Verona Policy
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Pathophysiology
- •Work-Up
- •Tissue Diagnosis
- •Serum Tumor Markers
- •Multidisciplinary Decision-Making
- •Adjuvant Trials
- •Systemic Chemotherapy
- •Chemoradiation
- •Neoadjuvant Trials
- •Chemotherapy
- •Chemoradiation
- •Pancreatectomy
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Diagnosis
- •Imaging
- •Functionality
- •Insulinoma
- •Gastrinoma
- •VIPoma
- •Glucagonoma
- •Staging/Surgical Decision-Making
- •Nonmetastatic Disease
- •Metastatic Disease
- •Multidisciplinary Decision-Making
- •Surgical Resection
- •Systemic Treatments
- •Open Trials
- •Surveillance
- •References
- •Renal Cell Carcinoma
- •Introduction/Epidemiology
- •Diagnosis/Radiology/Pathology
- •Treatment/Outcome
- •Colorectal Carcinoma
- •Introduction/Epidemiology
- •Diagnosis/Radiology/Pathology
- •Treatment/Prognosis
- •Melanoma
- •Introduction/Epidemiology
- •Diagnosis/Radiology/Pathology
- •Treatment/Prognosis
- •Sarcoma
- •Introduction/Epidemiology
- •Diagnosis/Radiology/Pathology
- •Treatment/Prognosis
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Preoperative Considerations
- •Key Steps
- •Staging Laparoscopy
- •Specimen Removal
- •Vascular Resection
- •Reconstruction
- •Pancreaticojejunostomy
- •Hepaticojejunostomy
- •Gastro- or Duodeno-Jejunostomy
- •Final Steps
- •References
- •Randomized Controlled Trials
- •Surgical Technique
- •Resection Phase
- •Reconstruction Phase
- •Postoperative Course
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Workup
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Surgical Management
- •Patient Preparation
- •Surgical Steps
- •Step 1: Kocher Maneuver
- •Step 4: Pancreatic Transection
- •Reconstruction
- •Hepaticojejunostomy
- •Pancreaticojejunostomy
- •Duodenojejunostomy
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Diagnostic Laparoscopy
- •Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS)
- •Splenic Vein Stump Length
- •Ligamentum Teres/Falciform Pedicle Flap
- •References
- •History
- •Early Exploration
- •Trends Over Time
- •Morbidity
- •Safety
- •Oncologic Safety
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Clinical Considerations
- •Anatomical Considerations
- •Surgical Technique
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Indications
- •Preoperative Testing
- •Operative Approach
- •Peritoneal Access
- •Specimen Extraction
- •Closure
- •Clinical Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Preparation
- •Key Shared Operative Steps
- •Trocar Placement
- •Splenic Flexure Mobilization
- •Pancreas Mobilization
- •Identify Pancreatic Pathology
- •Pancreatic Transection
- •Splenic Vein Dissection
- •Splenic Artery Dissection
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Historical Evolution
- •Perioperative Outcomes
- •Oncologic Outcomes
- •Neoadjuvant Therapy
- •Preoperative Adjuncts
- •Preoperative Coiling
- •Aortic Stenting
- •Robotic DP-CAR Surgical Technique
- •Positioning
- •Port Placement
- •Surgical Steps
- •Perioperative Care
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Considerations
- •Laparoscopic Enucleation
- •Patient Positioning
- •Procedure
- •Robotic Enucleation
- •Patient Positioning
- •Procedure
- •Open Enucleation
- •Postoperative Management
- •Postoperative Outcomes
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Indications
- •Preoperative Assessment
- •Serologic Testing
- •Surgical Management
- •Patient Preparation
- •Diagnostic Laparoscopy
- •Surgical Steps
- •Step 1: Gastric Mobilization
- •Step 2: Pancreatic Resection
- •Step 3: Reconstruction
- •Jejunojejunostomy
- •Pancreaticojejunostomy
- •Discussion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Biliary Obstruction
- •Endoscopic Interventions
- •Plastic Versus Metal Stents
- •Covered Versus Uncovered Metal Stents
- •Stent Obstruction
- •Surgical Options
- •Endoscopic Versus Surgical Intervention
- •Duodenal Obstruction
- •Duodenal Stents
- •Venting Percutaneous Gastrostomy Tubes (PEG)
- •Surgical Gastrojejunostomy (Duodenal Bypass)
- •Endoscopic Versus Surgical Intervention
- •Abdominal Pain
- •Celiac Plexus Neurolysis
- •Surgical Celiac Plexus Block
- •Summary
- •References

222
A. Polcari et al.
a
b
c
Fig. 13.22 (a) Stents in pave. (b) Duodenum closure rst layer with V-lock suture. (c) Second
layer with silk
Minimally Invasive Tips andTricks
Finding the Ampulla Preoperative stenting can be helpful but is not necessary. A
few adjuncts include:
1. Use of ICG to be given prior to the procedure. In the right patient, the bile duct
will be visible within the pancreas all the way to its exit in the duodenum.
2. Use of ultrasound. Start in the porta hepatis to identify the portal triad “Mickey
Mouse” head and follow the CBD (the upper left circle) into the pancreas and
then out to the duodenum (Fig.13.23).
3. Use of a wire or catheter through the cystic duct, down the CBD, and into the
duodenum (Fig.13.24). This makes palpation and identication easier.
Frozen Section
This decision may be due to how close the gross margin appears
on resection. If there is any concern for cancer, a Whipple may be the more appropriate operation. One can consider having pathology take a representative slice for
inspection, but this may not be high yield. Some pathologists will allow you to place
a STAT order on the permanent specimen so that if upgraded from adenoma to cancer on nal pathology, then another operation can be done immediately. However,
with proper patient selection, sending the bile duct margin to rule out adenoma or
high-grade dysplasia will determine if you need to resect higher on the duct.

13 Surgical: Transduodenal Resection (Open vs Minimally Invasive)
Fig. 13.23 Portal traid
223
Fig. 13.24 Fogarty
catheter

224
Fig. 13.25 4 fr. Hobbs
Medical stents
A. Polcari et al.
Stents The authors’ preference for duct stents are 4-Fr Hobbs Medical stents
(Stafford Springs, CT) (Fig.13.25). These are helpful to avoid back-walling the
duct and to note the trajectory of the duct. These can be stitched in place with a
chromic or Vicryl™ suture (but do not need to be).
Leak Test The authors do not routinely perform a leak test with endoscopy after
closure of the duodenotomy unless there is a concern about the integrity of the closure or concern over narrowing of the duodenum.
Drains are not necessary but are the preference of the authors. A 19-Fr
Drains
Blake drain is left, and a serum amylase is checked post-op day #1—if this is less
than three times the serum amylase and the drain is not bilious, it is removed after
the patient tolerates a diet. The diet is clear liquid for one meal followed by a low
residue diet. If there is concern for duodenal narrowing, a full liquid or soft diet can
also be used. It is possible to discharge patients on post-op day #1.
Falciform Flap Depending on the location of the duodenotomy and the size of the
falciform ligament, this can be buttressed over the duodenotomy closure like a
Graham Patch.
Follow-Up Typically, gastroenterology is asked to perform an upper endoscopy
6–12months postoperatively to look at the surgical neo-papilla and to evaluate for
possible recurrence (Fig.13.26).

13 Surgical: Transduodenal Resection (Open vs Minimally Invasive)
Fig. 13.26 Ampulla site post robotic amupullectomy
225
Outcomes
In general, patients have favorable outcomes after both transduodenal wedge resection and ampullectomy, regardless of open or minimally invasive technique. Given
the rarity of these tumors and resections, data for each operation is sparse and inconsistent. There are several retrospective, single-center studies describing outcomes
after open transduodenal resection. Most of these operations appear to take between
2 and 4h and have minimal blood loss (50–100mL). Length of stay, when reported,
is typically well over 1 week and the 90-day mortality rate in recent literature
approaches zero. Given the technical challenges associated with laparoscopic transduodenal resections, only case reports and small case series appear in the literature.
Despite similar blood loss to the open procedure, operative times are an hour longer
on average and length of stay is closer to 1week. Nienty-day mortality is also zero
for these cases. Since robotic surgery is the newest technique, it is also most often
documented as case reports. Robotic-assisted cases appear to have shorter operative
times and decreased length of stay compared to open and laparoscopic data though
without an appreciable difference in overall mortality, morbidity, or recurrence.
More studies are needed to parse out differences in the minimally invasive compared to open techniques, especially as robotic surgery becomes more prevalent.
The most common complications reported in recent literature are similar among
all techniques and includes duodenal leak, duct stricture (especially after ampullectomy), intra-abdominal abscess, and rarely pancreatitis and cholangitis.
Table 13.1 summarizes a brief literature review of outcomes for transduodenal
wedge resection and ampullectomy.

226
90-day
mortality
90-day
re-admission
Recurrence
(%) at mean
follow-up
time
Severe
complications;
Clavien-Dindo
IIIa or greater
Length of
stay (days)
Estimated
blood loss
(mL)
0 (0%)
N/A –
21.3months
– 6 (13%);
4; duct
7 (mean) None reported 2 (13.3%) at
14.9
100
(median)
50
cholangitis,
stricture, SSI,
SBO
– 0 (0%)
strictures and
wound
dehiscence
2; not reported 1 (3.7%) at
(mean)
(median)
– 14.3
palliative
3 (18.8%) 1 (6.3%);
6months
1 (6.3%) at
22months
2; intra-
abdominal
(mean)
12.5
(mean)
125
(mean)
resection
2 (8%) 0 (0%)
0 (0%) at
abscess,
duodenal leak
50 (mean) 5 (median) 3 (12%);
– 0 (0%)
16.5 motnhs
70months
duodenal leak,
hemorrhage
A. Polcari et al.
0 (0%)
2 (7.7%);
duodenal leak
& stenosis
0 (0%) 0 (0%)
3 (11.5%) at
72months
hemorrhage
– (mean) 1 (3.8%);
– 0 (0%)
1year
0 (0%) at
2 (9.5%);
20
8months
T-tube leak,
CBD stricture
(median)
(median)
Duration
of
operation
(min)
(mean)
218.5
Ampullectomy Open 122.9
Ampullectomy 43 open, 1
Tumor
size (cm) Resection type Technique
2.8
(mean)
1.74
Benign
tumors or
Tis on
nal path
(%)
(100%)
Cases
included
15 15
46 31
Retrospective
single center
Retrospective
Author, year Study design
Logarajah
etal., 2022
Table 13.1 Literature review of outcomes for transduodenal ampullectomy and transduodenal wedge resections of benign tumors as identied via PubMed search for
“transduodenal ampullectomy benign,” “open transduodenal ampullectomy,” “robotic transduodenal ampullectomy,” “transduodenal wedge,” “transduodenal wedge
benign,” “transduodenal submucosal resection”
[16]
(mean)
laparoscopic,
2 robotic
(mean)
(55.7%)
27 23 (85%) – Ampullectomy Open 212.3
single center
Retrospective
Jung etal.,
(mean)
(mean)
Ampullectomy Open 238.5
2.3
(mean)
(87.5%)
16 14
single center
Retrospective
single center
2021 [18]
(mean)
Robotic 204
6 (25%)
Ampullectomy,
6 (25%) wedge
2.7
(mean)
(100%)
24 24
Retrospective
single center
250.9
Ampullectomy Open – – – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) at
Ampullectomy 22 open,
(mean)
10 8 (80%) 1.7
26 22 (85%) 2.0
Retrospective
single center
Retrospective
Hong etal.,
(mean)
4
laparoscopic
(mean)
single center
Case report 1 1 (100%) Ampullectomy Robotic 250 20 7 0 (0%) 0 (0%) at
2018 [15]
Ampullectomy Open – 100
(median)
21 17 (81%) 1.5
Retrospective
single center

13 Surgical: Transduodenal Resection (Open vs Minimally Invasive)
90-day
mortality
90-day
re-admission
Recurrence
(%) at mean
follow-up
time
Severe
complications;
Clavien-Dindo
IIIa or greater
Length of
stay (days)
Estimated
blood loss
(mL)
– 0 (0%)
0 (0%) at
26.5months
1 (7%);
duodenal leak
(mean)
85 (mean) 11.6
– 0 (0%)
36months
– 0 (0%)
1 (2.3%) at
54months
8 (11%);
abscess,
duodenal leak,
necrotizing
(median)
– 5 (19.2%) 0 (0%)
pancreatitis,
cholangitis
abscess,
6 (median) 4 (15%);
50
(median)
duodenal leak,
hemorrhage
– 0 (0%)
1 (5%) at
33months
dehiscence,
duct stenosis
–
–
–
0 (0%)
8
50
–
–
0 (0%) 0 (0%)
–
0 (0%)
9
50
3months
– – –
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
10158.5
70
100
227
(continued)
0 (0%)
75
Duration
Benign
tumors or
of
operation
Tumor
Tis on
nal path
Cases
(min)
(mean)
size (cm) Resection type Technique
– Ampullectomy Open 145
(%)
(78.6%)
included
14 11
Retrospective
single center
Author, year Study design
Papalampros
etal., 2017
[12]
11 6 (54.5%) – Ampullectomy Open – – – 0 (0%) 1 (9%) at
73 70 (96%) – Ampullectomy Open – – 10
Retrospective
single center
Retrospective
single center
(median)
Robotic 240
Ampullectomy,
wedge, sleeve,
2.9
(median)
(100%)
26 26
Retrospective
dual center
segmental
duodenectomy
21 20 (95%) – Ampullectomy Open – – 9 (median) 5 (24%);
Retrospective
Kim etal.
200
250
Laparoscopic
Laparoscopic
Ampullectomy
Ampullectomy
2
1
1 (100%)
1 (100%)
1
single center
Case series 1
2011 [2]
166
Open
Ampullectomy
3
1 (100%)
Case report 1 1 (100%) – Ampullectomy Laparoscopic 240 50 6 0 (0%) 0 (0%) at
Case series 1
296
328.5
Laparoscopic
Robotic
Ampullectomy
Ampullectomy
1.4
1.75
1 (100%)
2 (100%)
1
2

228
90-day
mortality
90-day
re-admission
Recurrence
(%) at mean
follow-up
time
Severe
complications;
Clavien-Dindo
IIIa or greater
Length of
stay (days)
Estimated
blood loss
(mL)
1 (100%) 0 (0%)
0 (0%) at
6months
DGE req. TPN,
hepatic
1 (16.7%) 0 (0%)
20months
tuberculosis
6 (median) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) at
160
(median)
0 (0%) 0 (0%)
12months
– 0 (0%)
67months
– 0 (0%)
18months
– 0 (0%) 0 (0%) at
26.5
(median)
–––
–––
–––
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
788
151025
A. Polcari et al.
0 (0%)
Duration
Benign
tumors or
Table 13.1 (continued)
of
operation
Tumor
Tis on
nal path
Cases
(min)
size (cm) Resection type Technique
(%)
included
Case report 1 1 (100%) 2.0 Ampullectomy Robotic 305 50 27 1 (100%);
Author, year Study design
Linn etal.,
2021 [3]
(median)
Ampullectomy Robotic 200
(median)
Case series 6 5 (83%) 1.9
Case report 1 1 (100%) 3.5 Wedge Laparoscopic 287 10 0 (0%) 0 (0%) at
Case report 1 1 (100%) 1.8 Wedge Open – – – – 0 (0%) at
(mean)
Wedge Open 140.5
(median)
4 2 (50%) 1.55
Retrospective
single center
Hashimoto
etal., 2016
[11]
169
133
162
Laparoscopic
Laparoscopic
Laparoscopic
Wedge
Wedge
Wedge
1.4
1.3
1.5
0 (0%)
1 (100%)
1 (100%)
1
1
Case series 1

13 Surgical: Transduodenal Resection (Open vs Minimally Invasive)
229
Conclusions
Transduodenal resections serve as an intermediate option between endoscopic
resection and pancreatoduodenectomy for patients with antimesenteric duodenal
masses and ampullary lesions with good outcomes. Appropriate preoperative
workup can identify a subset of a patients with duodenal and ampullary tumors
amenable to transduodenal resection, thus sparing the more morbid Whipple procedure. Transduodenal wedge resection and ampullectomy can be successfully completed using minimally invasive (both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted) techniques,
which may improve patient experience postoperatively. Transduodenal resections
will continue to have a role in excision of benign, pre-malignant, and nonadenocarcinoma malignant masses of the duodenum.
References
1. Latos W, Kawczyk-Krupka A, Strzelczyk N, Sieroń A, Cieślar G.Benign and non-neoplastic
tumours of the duodenum. Prz Gastroenterol. 2019;14(4):233–41. https://doi.org/10.5114/
pg.2019.90250.
2. Kim J, Choi SH, Choi DW, Heo JS, Jang KT.Role of transduodenal ampullectomy for tumors
of the ampulla of Vater. J Korean Surg Soc. 2011;81(4):250–6. https://doi.org/10.4174/
jkss.2011.81.4.250.
3. Linn YL, Wang Z, Goh BKP.Robotic transduodenal ampullectomy: case report and review of
the literature. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2021;25(1):150–4. https://doi.org/10.14701/
ahbps.2021.25.1.150.
4. Popivanov G, Tabakov M, Mantese G, et al. Surgical treatment of gastrointestinal stromal
tumors of the duodenum: a literature review. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3:71. https://
doi.org/10.21037/tgh.2018.09.04.
5. García-Molina FJ, Mateo-Vallejo F, Franco-Osorio JD, Esteban-Ramos JL, Rivero-Hernández
I.Surgical approach for tumours of the third and fourth part of the duodenum. Distal pancreassparing duodenectomy. Int J Surg. 2015;18:143–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.04.051.
6. Scroggie DL, Mavroeidis VK. Surgical ampullectomy: a comprehensive review. World J
Gastrointest Surg. 2021;13(11):1338–50. https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v13.i11.1338.
7. Sekine M, Watanabe F, Ishii T, et al. Investigation of the indications for endoscopic papillectomy and transduodenal ampullectomy for ampullary tumors. J Clin Med. 2021;10(19):4463.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10194463.
8. Codjia T, Roussel E, Monge M, Gagnat G, Tuech JJ, Schwarz L. Pancreas-sparing surgery for benign duodenal lesions: four surgical techniques (with video). Ann Surg Oncol.
2021;28(6):3219–22. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09238-3.
9. Hiki N, Yamamoto Y, Fukunaga T, et al. Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery
for gastrointestinal stromal tumor dissection. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(7):1729–35. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00464-007-9696-8.
10. Ichikawa D, Komatsu S, Dohi O, et al. Laparoscopic and endoscopic co-operative surgery for
non-ampullary duodenal tumors. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(47):10424–31. https://doi.
org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i47.10424.
11. Hashimoto D, Arima K, Chikamoto A, et al. Limited resection of the duodenum for nonampullary duodenal tumors, with review of the literature. Am Surg. 2016;82(11):1126–32.

230
12. Papalampros A, Moris D, Petrou A, et al. Non-Whipple operations in the management of benign, premalignant and early cancerous duodenal lesions. Anticancer Res.
2017;37(3):1443–52. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.11468.
13. Abe N, Suzuki Y, Masaki T, Mori T, Sugiyama M.Surgical management of supercial nonampullary duodenal tumors. Dig Endosc. 2014;26(Suppl 2):57–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/
den.12272.
14. Paterakos P, Rojas AE, Choi SH. Robotic transduodenal ampullectomy: tips for safe reimplantation of biliary and pancreatic duct. J Gastrointest Surg. 2022;26(7):1550–1. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11605-022-05305-0.
15. Hong S, Song KB, Lee YJ, et al. Transduodenal ampullectomy for ampullary tumors—single
center experience of consecutive 26 patients. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2018;95(1):22–8. https://
doi.org/10.4174/astr.2018.95.1.22.
16. Logarajah S, Cho EE, Deleeuw P, Osman H, Jeyarajah DR. Transduodenal resection for
duodenal adenomas may be an underutilized tool—a single institution experience. Heliyon.
2022;8(4):e09187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09187.
17. Maithel SK, Fong Y. Technical aspects of performing transduodenal ampullectomy. J
Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12(9):1582–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-008-0474-2.
18. Jung YK, Paik SS, Choi D, Lee KG.Transduodenal ampullectomy for ampullary tumor. Asian
J Surg. 2021;44(5):723–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2020.12.021.
A. Polcari et al.

Chapter 14
Segmental Duodenectomy
DomenechAsbun, JohnStauffer, andHoracioJ.Asbun
Introduction
Although uncommon, a wide spectrum of neoplastic lesions arises in the duodenum, from benign lesions such as leiomyomas and hamartomas, to premalignant
adenomas, to malignant adenocarcinoma or neuroendocrine tumors [1, 2]. The
extent of disease dictates the appropriate treatment approach. Smaller benign
lesions, adenomas, and intramucosal carcinomas are often amenable to endoscopic
approaches, such as snare polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection [3].
Malignant lesions in the second portion of the duodenum involving the ampulla or
pancreas require pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), while benign lesions of the ampulla
may be treatable with an ampullectomy or pancreas-preserving total duodenectomy [4–6].
Duodenal lesions not involving the ampulla and not treatable endoscopically can
often be resected with a segmental duodenectomy. This approach spares the patient
the morbidity of a PD while having similar survival outcomes, even in the setting of
malignancy [7–9]. This chapter will focus on technical aspects of a proximal segmental duodenectomy (PSD) and distal segmental duodenectomy (DSD). PSD is a
resection of the rst portion of the duodenum and possibly distal antrum/pylorus,
for treatment of supra-ampullary lesions. DSD involves resection of the third and/or
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3- 031- 78409- 5_14.
D. Asbun (*) · H. J. Asbun
Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, USA
e-mail: domenech.asbun@baptisthealth.net
J. Stauffer
Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA
Switzerland AG 2025
E. P. Ceppa et al. (eds.), The SAGES Manual of Evolving Techniques in
Pancreatic Surgery, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-78409-5_14
231© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
