Добавил:
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
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
51 Мб
Скачать
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 andTricks
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 identication 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
6–12months 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 4h and have minimal blood loss (50–100mL). 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 1week. 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
21.3months
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%);
6months
1 (6.3%) at
22months
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
70months
duodenal leak,
hemorrhage
A. Polcari et al.
0 (0%)
2 (7.7%);
duodenal leak
& stenosis
0 (0%) 0 (0%)
3 (11.5%) at
72months
hemorrhage
(mean) 1 (3.8%);
0 (0%)
1year
0 (0%) at
2 (9.5%);
20
8months
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
etal., 2022
Table 13.1 Literature review of outcomes for transduodenal ampullectomy and transduodenal wedge resections of benign tumors as identied 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 etal.,
(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 etal.,
(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
26.5months
1 (7%);
duodenal leak
(mean)
85 (mean) 11.6
0 (0%)
36months
0 (0%)
1 (2.3%) at
54months
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
33months
dehiscence,
duct stenosis
0 (0%)
8
50
0 (0%) 0 (0%)
0 (0%)
9
50
3months
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
etal., 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 etal.
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
6months
DGE req. TPN,
hepatic
1 (16.7%) 0 (0%)
20months
tuberculosis
6 (median) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) at
160
(median)
0 (0%) 0 (0%)
12months
0 (0%)
67months
0 (0%)
18months
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 etal.,
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
etal., 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 supercial 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
DomenechAsbun, JohnStauffer, andHoracioJ.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 [46].
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 [79]. 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