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_775_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Introduction
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1.5 Venous Anatomy
- •1.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.1.1.1 IPDA
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 Arterial Anatomy
- •1.3 Portal Venous Anatomy
- •1.4 Biliary Anatomy
- •2.1.1.4 Dorsal Pancreatic Artery (DPA)
- •2.3 Surgical Techniques
- •2.4 Discussion
- •2.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.2 Intrahepatic Biliary Tract
- •3.2.4 Accessory Biliary Ducts
- •3.3 Extrahepatic Biliary Tract
- •3.3.2 Retroduodenopancreatic Portion
- •3.3.3 Intramural Portion
- •3.5 Accessory Biliary Tract
- •3.5.2 Vascularization
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 Posthepatectomy Liver Failure (PHLF)
- •4.3.1 Portal Hypertension
- •4.3.3 Blood Chemistry Tests
- •4.3.4 Indocyanine Green (ICG) Clearance Test
- •4.4 M2BPGi
- •4.5 Scintigraphy
- •4.7 Measuring FLR Function
- •4.8 Conclusions
- •References
- •5.1.1 Hemangioma
- •5.1.2 Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
- •5.1.3 Simple Hepatic Cyst
- •5.1.4 Hepatic Adenoma
- •5.2.1 Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •5.2.2 Metastatic Disease
- •5.2.3 Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •5.2.4 Hepatic Angiosarcoma
- •5.3.1 Acute Calculous Cholecystitis
- •5.3.2 Chronic Cholecystitis
- •5.3.3 Acalculous Cholecystitis
- •5.3.4 Biliary Dyskinesia
- •5.3.5 Choledocolithiasis
- •5.3.7 Choledochal Cysts
- •5.3.8 Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis
- •5.3.9 Benign Biliary Stricture
- •5.4.1 Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •5.4.2 Gall Bladder Cancer
- •5.5.1 Acute Pancreatitis
- •5.5.2 Chronic Pancreatitis
- •5.5.3 Pancreas Neuroendocrine Tumors
- •5.5.4 Pancreas Cystic Neoplasms
- •5.5.4.1 Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm
- •5.5.4.2 Mucinous Cystic Neoplasm
- •5.5.4.3 Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm
- •5.6.1 Pancreas Adenocarcinoma
- •References
- •6.2.1 Gallbladder
- •6.3.1 Gallbladder Dysfunction
- •6.3.3 Pancreaticobiliary Maljunction
- •6.4.2 Enterohepatic Circulation
- •6.4.3 Bile Acids
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •BilINs
- •IPNBs
- •7.1.1.2 Imaging Findings
- •BilINs
- •IPNB
- •7.1.2.1 Gross
- •BilIN
- •IPNB
- •Controversial Cases: BilIN or IPNB
- •7.1.2.2 Histologies
- •BilINs
- •IPNB.
- •8.4 Gallbladder Carcinoma
- •8.4.1 Gross Features
- •8.4.2 Microscopic Features
- •8.4.3 Molecular Features
- •References
- •BilIN
- •IPNB
- •7.1.4.1 BilIN
- •7.1.4.2 IPNB
- •7.2 Conclusion
- •References
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •8.2.1 Gross Features
- •8.2.2 Microscopic Features
- •8.2.3 Molecular Features
- •8.3 Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •8.3.1 Gross Features
- •8.3.2 Microscopic Features
- •8.3.3 Molecular Features
- •References
- •10.1.2 Epidemiology
- •10.1.3 Etiology
- •10.1.4 Clinical Features
- •10.1.5 Radiology
- •10.1.6 Pathology
- •10.1.6.1 Macroscopic Appearance
- •10.1.6.3 Immunohistochemistry
- •10.1.6.4 Grading
- •10.1.6.6 Molecular Pathology
- •10.2.2 Epidemiology
- •10.2.3 Etiology
- •10.2.4 Clinical Features
- •10.2.5 Radiology
- •10.2.6 Pathology
- •10.2.6.1 Macroscopic Appearance
- •10.2.6.2 Microscopic Appearance
- •10.2.6.3 Immunohistochemistry
- •10.2.6.5 Molecular Pathology
- •10.3.2 Epidemiology
- •10.3.3 Etiology
- •10.3.4 Clinical Features
- •10.3.5 Radiology
- •10.3.6 Pathology
- •10.3.6.1 Macroscopic Appearance
- •10.3.6.3 Immunohistochemistry
- •10.3.6.5 Molecular Pathology
- •References
- •11: Mucinous Cystic Neoplasms
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Clinical Aspects
- •11.3 Pathological Findings
- •11.3.1 Macroscopical Features
- •11.3.2 Histological Features
- •11.4 Molecular Abnormalities
- •References
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.1.1 General Features
- •12.1.2 Diagnostic Features
- •12.1.3 Clinical Implications
- •12.1.4 Desmoplastic Stroma
- •12.1.5 Venous Invasion
- •12.1.6 Variants
- •12.2 Conclusions
- •References
- •13.2.1 Benign Liver Tumors
- •13.2.2 Malignant Liver Tumors
- •13.2.3.1 Liver Abscess
- •13.4.1 Biliary Tree Tumors
- •13.5.1 Pancreatic Tumors
- •References
- •14.1 MRE Technique
- •14.2 MRE Performance
- •14.4 Technical Limitations
- •14.5 Summary
- •References
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •17.1 Intraoperative Cholangiography
- •17.2 Intraoperative Ultrasound
- •17.2.1 Anatomy
- •17.2.2 Diagnosis
- •17.2.3 Resection Guidance
- •17.2.3.2 Resection Guidance
- •17.3 Intraoperative Fluorescence Imaging
- •17.4 Navigation Assisted Liver Resection
- •References
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 Photon Therapy
- •18.3 Charged Particles Therapy
- •18.4 MRI Guided Therapy
- •18.5 Combination Strategies Using Cytotoxics
- •18.6 Radioimmunotherapy
- •18.8 Summary
- •References
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 Systemic Chemotherapy
- •19.2.1 Adjuvant Therapy
- •19.2.2 First-Line Therapy
- •19.2.3 Second-Line Therapy
- •19.3 Targeted Therapy
- •19.4 Immunotherapy
- •19.5 Precision Medicine
- •References
- •20.1 Introduction
- •20.2.1 Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
- •20.2.2 Adjuvant Chemotherapy
- •20.2.3 Palliative Chemotherapy
- •20.3 Immunotherapy
- •20.4 Tumor Microenvironment
- •20.5 Summary
- •References
- •21.1 Background
- •21.5 Combination Strategies
- •21.7 Future Perspectives
- •References
- •22.1 FGFR Alterations
- •22.2 IDH Mutations
- •22.3 BRAF Alterations
- •22.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •23.1 Introduction
- •23.2 Adjuvant Systemic Therapy
- •23.3 Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy
- •23.4.3 Second-Line Therapy
- •23.4.4 Targeted Therapy
- •References
- •24.1 Introduction
- •24.4 The Various Stents Available
- •24.8 Hilar Strictures (Resectable Cases)
- •24.9 Hilar Stricture: Palliative Cases
- •24.11 Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage
- •24.12 Conclusions
- •References
- •25.1 Introduction
- •25.3 EUS-TD Technique
- •25.4 EN Technique
- •25.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •26.1 Background
- •26.2 Short History
- •26.4.6 Personalized Cancer Treatment
- •References
- •27.1 Introduction
- •27.3.1 Pre-Admission Optimization
- •27.3.3 Carbohydrate Loading
- •27.3.6 Early Feeding
- •27.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •28.1 Introduction
- •28.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •29.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •30.1 Introduction
- •30.3 Surgical Indication
- •30.4 Surgical Technique
- •30.4.1 Exposure
- •30.4.4 Parenchymal Transection
- •30.5 Clinical Advantages
- •30.5.1 Technical Advantages
- •30.5.2 Prognostic Advantages
- •30.6 Conclusions
- •References
- •31.1 Introduction
- •31.2 Multiple Bilobar CLM
- •31.2.1 Intraoperative Ultrasound
- •31.2.2 Tumor-vessel Detachment
- •31.2.3 Communicating Veins
- •31.3 New Procedures
- •31.3.1.1 Eligibility Criteria
- •31.3.2 Upper Trasversal Hepatectomy (UTH))
- •31.3.2.1 Mini-Upper Transversal Hepatectomy
- •31.3.2.2 Right Upper Transversal Hepatectomy [33]
- •31.3.2.3 Left Upper Transversal Hepatectomy [24]
- •31.3.2.4 Total Upper Transversal Hepatectomy [24, 34]
- •Eligibility Criteria
- •31.3.3 Mini-mesohepatectomy (MMH) [35, 36]
- •31.3.3.1 Eligibility Criteria
- •31.3.4 Liver Tunnel [37, 38]
- •Eligibility Criteria
- •31.4 Discussion
- •31.5 Concerns & Future Directions
- •31.6 Conclusions
- •References
- •32.1 Introduction
- •References
- •33.1 Introduction
- •33.6 Segmentectomy, Cone Unit Resection
- •33.7 Surgical Outcomes
- •References
- •34.1 Introduction
- •34.6 Laparoscopic Parenchymal Sparing Anatomical Hepatectomy (Lap-PSAH)
- •34.7 Surgical Procedures at Ageo Central General Hospital (ACGH)
- •34.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •35.5 Laparoscopic Segmentectomy V (S5)
- •35.6 Laparoscopic Segmentectomy VI (S6)
- •35.7 Laparoscopic Segmentectomy VII (S7)
- •References
- •36: Modified ALPPS Procedure
- •36.1 Introduction
- •36.2 Discussion
- •36.2.1 Parenchymal Transection
- •36.2.2 Hepatoduodenal Ligament Dissection
- •36.2.4.1 Partial ALPPS
- •36.2.4.2 Hybrid ALPPS
- •36.2.4.3 Mini-ALPPS/ALPTIPS
- •36.2.4.5 Tourniquet ALPPS
- •36.3 Conclusion
- •References
- •37.1 Introduction
- •37.3 Right-Posterior Approach
- •37.4 Right-Uncinate Approach
- •37.5 Mesenteric Approach
- •37.6 Left-Posterior Approach
- •37.7 Anterior Approach
- •37.8 Mesopancreatic Resection
- •37.10 Summary
- •References
- •38: Organ- and Parenchyma-sparing Pancreatic Surgery
- •38.1 Introduction
- •38.2 Organ-Sparing Techniques
- •38.2.1 Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy
- •38.3 Parenchyma-Sparing Techniques
- •38.3.2 Dorsal Pancreatectomy
- •38.3.4 Middle-Preserving Pancreatectomy
- •38.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •39.1 Introduction
- •39.2.1 Laparotomy
- •39.2.2 Supramesocolic Approach
- •39.2.3 Inframesocolic Approach
- •39.3 Mesenteric Incision
- •39.9 Antithrombogenic PV Catheter Bypass
- •39.13 Discussion
- •References
- •40.1 Introduction
- •40.4 HA Reconstruction
- •40.4.1 Simple Reconstruction Case
- •40.4.2 Complicated Reconstruction Case
- •40.4.3 Concomitant Vein Resection
- •40.4.4 Management after HA Reconstruction
- •40.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •41.1 Introduction
- •41.3.1 Patients
- •41.3.2 Preoperative Treatments
- •41.3.5 Statistical Analyses
- •41.4 Results
- •41.5 Discussion
- •References
- •42.1 Introduction
- •42.1.1 Preoperative Planning
- •42.2 Surgical Technique
- •42.2.1 Basic Preliminary Maneuvers
- •42.3 Postoperative Management
- •42.4 Conclusions
- •References
- •43: Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy
- •43.1 Background
- •43.2 Robotic PD
- •43.3 Conclusion
- •References
- •44: Duodenum-Preserving Pancreatic Head Resection
- •References
- •45.1 Introduction
- •45.2 Surgical Technique
- •45.3 Discussion
- •References
- •46: Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy
- •46.1 Introduction
- •46.2 Indications
- •46.4 Technique
- •46.4.1 Warshaw’s Technique
- •46.5 Postoperative Follow-Up
- •References
- •References
- •48.1 Introduction
- •48.10 Surgical Technique Preserving Left Gastric Artery
- •48.12 Conclusions
- •References
- •49: Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy
- •49.1 Surgical Technique
- •49.1.3 Distal Splenopancreatectomy
- •49.1.4 Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy
- •49.2 Results
- •49.3 Discussion
- •References
- •50: Total Pancreatectomy
- •50.1 Introduction
- •50.2 Indications
- •50.3 Surgical Procedure
- •50.4 Vascular Resection
- •50.5 Comment
- •References
- •References
- •52.1 Introduction
- •52.2.1 Non-Functional PNEN (NF-PNEN)
- •52.2.2 Functional PNEN
- •52.2.4 High-grade PNEN
- •52.4 Conclusions
- •References
- •53.1 Introduction
- •53.1.1 Fukuoka Guidelines 2012 (Revised 2017)
- •53.1.2 European Guidelines 2018 (EG18)
- •53.2 Discussion
- •References
- •54.1 Introduction
- •54.1.1 Developmental Mechanism
- •54.1.2 Designations
- •54.1.3 Incidence
- •54.1.4 Predictive Factors
- •54.1.5 Treatment
- •54.2 Conclusion
- •References
- •55: Benign Biliary Diseases
- •55.1 Introduction
- •55.2 Congenital Anomalies
- •55.2.1 Biliary Atresia
- •55.2.2 Choledochal Cyst
- •55.3 Diagnosis
- •55.4 Complications
- •55.5 Management
- •55.5.1 Gallstones
- •55.6 Pathogenesis
- •55.8 Complications
- •55.9 Bile Duct Stones
- •55.10 Management
- •55.11 Intrahepatic Stones
- •55.13.1 Benign Biliary Strictures (BBS)
- •55.14 Iatrogenic Biliary Injury
- •55.15 Mirizzi Syndrome (MS)
- •55.16 Liver Transplantation Related BBS
- •55.17 Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC)
- •55.17.1 Biliary Dyskinesia
- •References
- •56.1 Introduction
- •56.2 Preoperative Evaluation
- •56.2.1 Preoperative Biliary Drainage
- •56.2.2 Portal Vein Embolization
- •56.3.2 Hilar No Touch “En-bloc” Technique
- •56.3.3 Vascular Resection
- •56.3.4 Margin Status
- •56.3.5 Lymph Node Dissection
- •56.3.6 Minimally Invasive Surgery
- •56.4 Short-term Results
- •56.5 Long-term Results
- •56.6 Conclusions
- •Bibliography
- •57.1 Introduction
- •57.2 Clinical Presentation
- •57.3 Serum Tumor Markers
- •57.4 Imaging
- •57.5 Treatment
- •57.6 Surgical Management
- •57.6.1 Liver Resection
- •57.11 Surgical Resection Procedure
- •57.13.2 Long-Term Outcomes
- •57.14 Recurrence
- •57.14.1 Liver Transplantation
- •References
- •58.1 Introduction
- •58.1.2 Surgical Techniques
- •58.1.4 Outcomes After HPD
- •58.1.5 Practical Management During Surgery
- •References
- •59: Hepato-biliary Injuries
- •59.1 Etiology
- •59.4 Diagnosis
- •59.4.1 Clinical Presentation
- •59.4.2 Imaging
- •References
- •60.1 Background
- •60.2 Diagnostics
- •60.3 Treatment
- •60.3.1 Nonoperative Management
- •60.3.2 Interventional Treatment
- •60.3.3 Surgery
- •References
- •61.1 Historical Overview
- •61.2.1.1 Acute Liver Failure (ALF)
- •61.2.1.2 Chronic Liver Failure
- •61.2.3 MELD Exceptions
- •61.2.4 Other Standardized MELD Exceptions
- •61.2.4.1 Non-Standardized MELD Exceptions
- •References
- •62.3 Patient Assessment
- •62.4 Prognostic Factors
- •62.6 Extracorporeal Liver Support Systems
- •62.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •63.1 Introduction
- •63.2 Donation After Brain Death
- •63.3 Donors after Circulatory Death
- •63.4.1 Surgical Technique
- •63.4.1.1 Cross-clamping
- •63.4.2 Technical Variants
- •63.4.2.1 Split Liver Retrieval
- •63.4.2.2 En-bloc Liver-pancreas Retrieval
- •63.4.2.3 En-bloc Liver-bowel Retrieval
- •63.4.3 Back-table
- •63.4.3.1 Incidents: Accidents
- •References
- •64.1 Introduction
- •64.11 Conclusions
- •References
- •65: Living Donor Liver Transplantation
- •65.1 Introduction
- •65.2.1 Graft Size
- •65.2.2 Left Liver Graft
- •65.2.3 Right Liver Graft
- •65.2.4 Right Lateral Sector Graft
- •65.2.5 Dual Graft
- •65.2.6 ABO Blood Type Incompatible Graft
- •References

Modified ALPPS Procedure
NobuyukiTakemura, KyoujiIto, andNorihiroKokudo
36
Abstract
In patients with hepatobiliary malignancies located
around the hepatic hilum or those with multiple metastatic lesions, a major hepatectomy is the only curative
treatment. A major hepatectomy functions to remove
tumor cells concomitant with the hemi-liver or liver
parenchyma; however, there is a risk of insufcient remnant liver volume, which might cause postoperative morbidity and mortality in these extended hepatectomies. To
overcome this problem, Makuuchi etal. rst introduced
preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE), which
increases the volume of the future liver remnant (FLR),
allowing extended hepatectomy to be performed safely.
However, there is a maximum volume increase in PVE of
approximately 40%. The associating liver partition and
portal vein ligation for the staged hepatectomy (ALPPS)
procedure was rst introduced in 2012, and was shown to
increase the FLR by up to 80%. Initially, the major problem of the ALPPS procedure was a high morbidity and
relatively high mortality compared to these of PVE.To
overcome this problem, various modications of the
ALPPS procedure have been proposed, and satisfactory
results have been reported. In this section, various modied ALPPS procedures and their results are presented.
36.1 Introduction
A major hepatectomy is the only curative treatment for
patients with extensive hepatobiliary malignancies located
around the hepatic hilum or with multiple bi-lobular metastatic lesions. A major hepatectomy provides a chance of
cure by removing tumor cells concomitant with the hemi-
N. Takemura (*) · K. Ito · N. Kokudo
Department of Surgery, Hepato-Biliary Pancreatic Surgery
Division, National Center for Global Health and Medicine,
Tokyo, Japan
e-mail: ntakemura@hosp.ncgm.go.jp
liver or liver parenchyma. However, there is a risk of insufcient remnant liver volume, which may lead to postoperative
live failure in these cases with extended hepatectomy. To
overcome this problem, Makuuchi etal. rst introduced preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE), which increases
the volume of the future liver remnant (FLR), allowing
extended hepatectomy to be performed safely [1]. However,
PVE has a maximum volume increase of approximately
40% [2].
Schnitzbauer etal. introduced combined portal vein ligation and in situ liver partition-induced rapid liver hypertrophy of the liver remnant [3], which was later named
associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged
hepatectomy (ALPPS) [4]. The ALPPS procedure enables a
rapid FLR increase of up to 80%; despite this improvement,
initial studies reported very high morbidity and mortality [3,
5] in compensation for very rapid hepatic hypertrophy. The
majority of the mortality associated with the ALPPS procedures occurred due to bile leakage and septic complications.
It is also important to consider the interval to the second
operation, with early reports suggesting that the second surgery should be performed within 7 to 9days after the rst
operation [3, 5]. In the ALPPS procedure, even with rapid
and sufcient liver hypertrophy from the aspect of liver volume only, the presence of immature hepatocytes in the FLR
may be one of the reasons for postoperative liver failure after
the second operation [6]. Furthermore, Olthof et al. stated
that the liver volume overestimates liver function measured
by hepatobiliary scintigraphy [7].
Although there are still some problems that need to be
overcome, the ALPPS procedure is a novel technique for use
in patients with extensive, initially unresectable tumors and
very small FLR volumes, especially as a salvage procedure
in patients with portal vein embolization/occlusion failure
[8]. Various modications have been proposed to overcome
the problems associated with ALPPS procedures. In this section, we introduce the modications that have led to safer
ALPPS procedures and discuss their advantages and disad-
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
M. Makuuchi et al. (eds.), The IASGO Textbook of Multi-Disciplinary Management of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Diseases,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0063-1_36
285

286
N. Takemura et al.
vantages with respect to inducing remnant liver hypertrophy
in patients with advanced hepatobiliary malignancies with an
insufcient FLR.
36.2 Discussion
The ALPPS procedure has been introduced as a new treatment strategy for patients with extensive hepatobiliary
malignancies with a small FLR volume [3, 4]. Originally, the
ALPPS procedure involved the complete mobilization of the
right hemi-liver and total parenchymal transection from the
falciform ligament to the inferior vena cava, in addition to
the resection of the Glissonian sheath branches of segment 4
and hepatoduodenal ligament dissection for the ligation of
the right portal vein (Fig.36.1). Given the rapid hypertrophy
of the FLR, the second stage of the hepatectomy was performed 7 or 9days after the rst hepatectomy [3, 5]. Initial
reports on ALPPS procedures demonstrated high morbidity
and mortality rates in 12% to 15% of patients, the majority of
which were due to biliary and infectious complications and
liver failure [3, 5]. Several modications have been made to
reduce these adverse effects, and improved results have been
reported.
4. More recent experimental and clinical data has shown that
rapid liver hypertrophy is induced by partial transection of at
least 50% [9–11]. Furthermore, conducting partial liver transection results in signicantly lower morbidity and mortality
[9, 10].
36.2.2 Hepatoduodenal Ligament Dissection
Cholecystectomy and the dissection of the hepatoduodenal
ligament are essential to correctly approach the right portal
vein for ligation; however, this tends to cause dense adhesion
around the hepatic hilum and increases the difculty of the
second stage hepatectomy [10]. Another problem with hepatoduodenal ligament dissection is the risk of tumor exposure
when the tumor is located close to the hepatic hilum. In order
to avoid the skeltonization of the hepatoduodenal ligament,
the transhepatic approach or the approach via the mesenteric
vein have been proposed for intrahepatic portal vein occlusion [12–15]. If it is difcult to puncture the portal vein
because of the presence of multiple bi-lobular tumors, the
occlusion approach to the intrahepatic portal vein can be
shifted from the transhepatic to the inferior mescenteric or
ileocecal portal vein instead.
36.2.1 Parenchymal Transection
Total parenchymal transection from the falciform ligament
to the inferior vena cava was performed in the original
ALPPS procedure; this had the potential to result in biliary
complications of the biliary branches of segment 4, as well
as infectious complications of the ischemic area of segment
Fig. 36.1 Conventional ALPPS procedure with total parenchymal
transection to the inferior vena cava, with resection of the Glissonian
branches of segment 4, full mobilization of the right hemiliver, and
hepatoduodenal ligament dissection
36.2.3 Interval Between theFirst andSecond
Stage Hepatectomy
The main feature of the ALPPS procedure is the rapid hypertrophy of the FLR, which makes it possible to perform a second hepatectomy, even with a short interval. Initial reports
advocated that the rapid hypertrophy of the procedure
enabled a second hepatectomy within an interval of 7 to
9 days after the rst operation [3, 5]. However, there are
debates on whether liver hypertrophy truly reects sufcient
functional recovery of the liver. Indeed, microscopic examination and hepatobiliary scintigraphy of the FLR after the
ALPPS procedure have highlighted the risk of hepatocyte
immaturity and insufcient liver functional recovery [6, 7];
thus, delayed second surgery of the ALPPS procedure is currently recommended [7, 16].
These modications are shown in Fig.36.2.
36.2.4 Various Modied Subtypes
oftheALPPS Procedure
36.2.4.1 Partial ALPPS
Petrowsky etal. rst introduced partial transection (50% to
80% transection of the complete transection plane) in the
rst stage of the operation. This modication was based on
their experimental models and the hypothesis that partial

36 Modied ALPPS Procedure
Fig. 36.2 Modied ALPPS procedure with half parenchymal transec-
tion without resection of the Glissonian branches of segment 4, without
mobilization of the right hemiliver, and without hepatoduodenal ligament dissection. Portal vein occlusion is done transhepatic approach or
trans superior/inferior mesenteric vein approach
parenchymal transection triggers a comparable degree of the
regeneration of the FLR to complete transection and reduces
postoperative complications [9]. This modication, named
Partial ALPPS, achieved reduced morbidity and mortality
and is currently the standard modication of the ALPPS
procedure.
36.2.4.2 Hybrid ALPPS
Li etal. suggested an alternative ALPPS method that consisted of three steps: parenchymal splitting, right PVE, and
two-stage hepatectomy, named hybrid ALPPS [12]. This
method can avoid adhesion around the hepatic hilum, and
can be applied even when the tumor is located close to the
hepatic hilum. However, this approach is difcult in cases
with multiple bi-lobular tumors as it is difcult to ensure an
adequate transhepatic puncture line from the body surface.
36.2.4.3 Mini-ALPPS/ALPTIPS
De Santibanes etal. proposed a modication of the ALPPS
procedure, known as the “Mini-ALPPS” technique, in which
partial parenchymal transection combined with intraoperative PVE is performed via the inferior mesenteric vein with
minimum liver mobilization [13]. A similar modication
was reported by Sakamoto etal., who used the ileocecal vein
approach for PVE as an alternative to the inferior mesenteric
vein [14, 15]. Both modications can avoid dense adhesion
around the hepatic hilum during the second stage hepatectomy. Furthermore, these procedures can be performed when
the tumors are located close to the hepatic hilum without
tumor exposure and in cases with multiple bi-lobular tumors
where transhepatic puncture of the portal vein may be
difcult.
287
36.2.4.4 Segment 4 Portal Pedicle-spared
ALPPS
In ve patients, Tanaka etal. reported a modication of the
ALPPS procedure that avoids the division of the portal pedicle and prevents parenchymal necrosis due to ischemia.
Portal vein ligation was performed using this method; however, the ligation of the Glissonian sheath branches of the
additional hepatic area in the future liver removed are preserved [17]. Since the term “modied ALPPS” is misleading
in this chapter, we have changed it to “Segment 4 portal
pedicle-spared ALPPS,” derived from their procedures. Of
course their modication of the preserved portal pedicle
were not only segment 4 branch, however, considering the
original ALPPS procedure which completely divide portal
pedicle of segment 4, this nomenclature seems to be a good
reection of their modication. This modication achieved
rapid liver hypertrophies, which were almost identical to
those of the original ALPPS procedure without the associated mortality.
36.2.4.5 Tourniquet ALPPS
Robles etal. reported using a tourniquet as an alternative to
parenchymal splitting [18]. In this procedure, a tourniquet
was placed around the parenchymal transection line using
the hanging maneuver, and the right portal vein was ligated
and cut. Although this modication is easy to perform during
the rst stage of the operation, during the second stage,
severe adhesion occurs around the hepatic hilum, which
requires a longer operation time because parenchymal transection was not performed during the rst stage. Furthermore,
two mortalities were reported in their initial report, even with
the modication.
36.3 Conclusion
The ALPPS procedure provides a potential cure for patients
with extensive and initially unresectable hepatobiliary malignancies with a small FLR.Various modications have been
proposed to overcome the high morbidity and mortality associated with the ALPPS procedure; these include reduced
hepatic parenchymal transection, no bile duct resection, no
dissection of the hepatoduodenal ligament, laparoscopic
approach, and avoiding the mobilization of the right hemiliver. However, the safest approach to increase the FLR is
PVE, and the indication of the ALPPS procedure should be
limited to patients with a very small FLR or failure of
PVE. Even with the rapid hepatic hypertrophy associated
with the ALPPS procedure, a second hepatectomy should be
performed following the maturation of the hepatocytes in the
FLR.The modications mentioned in this section should be
selected on a case-by-case basis in order to increase the
safety of the ALPPS procedure.

288
N. Takemura et al.
References
1. Makuuchi M, Thai BL, Takayasu K, et al. Preoperative portal
embolization to increase safety of major hepatectomy for hilar bile
duct carcinoma: a preliminary report. Surgery. 1990;107(5):521–7.
2. Pandanaboyana S, Bell R, Hidalgo E, etal. A systematic review
and meta-analysis of portal vein ligation versus portal vein embolization for elective liver resection. Surgery. 2015;157(4):690–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2014.12.009.
3. Schnitzbauer AA, Lang SA, Goessmann H, etal. Right portal vein
ligation combined with in situ splitting induces rapid left lateral
liver lobe hypertrophy enabling 2-staged extended right hepatic
resection in small-for-size settings. Ann Surg. 2012;255(3):405–14.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31824856f5.
4. de Santibañes E, Clavien PA. Playing Play-Doh to prevent postoperative liver failure: the “ALPPS” approach.
Ann Surg. 2012;255(3):415–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/
SLA.0b013e318248577d.
5. Schadde E, Ardiles V, Slankamenac K, etal. ALPPS offers a better
chance of complete resection in patients with primarily unresectable
liver tumors compared with conventional-staged hepatectomies:
results of a multicenter analysis. World J Surg. 2014;38(6):1510–9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268- 014- 2513- 3.
6. Matsuo K, Murakami T, Kawaguchi D, et al. Histologic features
after surgery associating liver partition and portal vein ligation
for staged hepatectomy versus those after hepatectomy with portal vein embolization. Surgery. 2016;159(5):1289–98. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.12.004.
7. Olthof PB, Tomassini F, Huespe PE, et al. Hepatobiliary scintigraphy to evaluate liver function in associating liver partition and
portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy: liver volume overestimates liver function. Surgery. 2017;162(4):775–83. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.surg.2017.05.022.
8. Enne M, Schadde E, Björnsson B, etal. ALPPS as a salvage procedure after insufcient future liver remnant hypertrophy following
portal vein occlusion. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19(12):1126–9. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2017.08.013.
9. Petrowsky H, Györi G, de Oliveira M, etal. Is partial-ALPPS safer
than ALPPS? A single-center experience. Ann Surg. 2015;261(4):90–
2. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001087.
10. Alvarez FA, Ardiles V, de Santibañes M, et al. Associating liver
partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy offers high
oncological feasibility with adequate patient safety: a prospective
study at a single center. Ann Surg. 2015;261(4):723–32. https://doi.
org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001046.
11. Linecker M, Kambakamba P, Reiner CS, et al. How much liver
needs to be transected in ALPPS? A translational study investigating the concept of less invasiveness. Surgery. 2017;161(2):453–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.08.004.
12. Li J, Kantas A, Ittrich H, etal. Avoid “all-touch” by hybrid ALPPS
to achieve oncological efcacy. Ann Surg. 2016;263(1):6–7. https://
doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000845.
13. de Santibañes E, Alvarez FA, Ardiles V, etal. Inverting the ALPPS
paradigm by minimizing rst stage impact: the mini-ALPPS technique. Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2016;401(4):557–63. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00423- 016- 1424- 1.
14. Sakamoto Y, Inagaki F, Omichi K, etal. Associating liver partial
partition and transileocecal portal vein embolization for staged hepatectomy. Ann Surg. 2016;264(6):21–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/
SLA.0000000000001757.
15. Sakamoto Y, Matsumura M, Yamashita S, etal. Partial TIPE ALPPS
for perihilar cancer. Ann Surg. 2018;267(2):18–20. https://doi.
org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002484.
16. Lodge JP. ALPPS: the argument for. Eur J Surg Oncol.
2017;43(2):246–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.11.007.
17. Tanaka K, Kikuchi Y, Kawaguchi D, et al. Modied
ALPPS procedures avoiding division of portal pedicles.
Ann Surg. 2017;265(2):14–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/
SLA.0000000000001967.
18. Robles R, Parrilla P, López-Conesa A, etal. Tourniquet modication of the associating liver partition and portal ligation for staged
hepatectomy procedure. Br J Surg. 2014;101(9):1129–34. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9547.

Artery-First Approach
inPancreaticoduodenectomy
DaisukeBan andMinoruTanabe
37
Abstract
Due to its anatomical characteristics, cancer of the pancreatic head often invades the superior mesenteric vein
(SMV), the portal vein (PV), and the plexus surrounding
the superior mesenteric artery (SMA). Several different
approaches to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) have been
proposed in order to achieve R0 resection.
37.1 Introduction
Due to its anatomical characteristics, cancer of the pancreatic head often invades the superior mesenteric vein (SMV),
the portal vein (PV), and the plexus surrounding the superior
mesenteric artery (SMA). Several different approaches to
pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) have been proposed in order
to achieve R0 resection.
The mesenteric approach established by Nakao [1] in the
1990s is based on the concept of isolated pancreatectomy, in
which the SMA and SMV are rst dissected without kocherization. The concept of the artery-rst approach to divide
the SMA from the pancreatic head by approaching the SMA
at an early stage of the PD procedure seems to have originated in the mesenteric approach of Nakao et al. Later,
Pessaux et al. reported a comprehensive variety of
approaches for the treatment of pancreatic head cancer with
suspected SMA invasion [2]. The term “artery-rst
approach” proposed by Weitz etal. has now become widely
used internationally [3].
37.2 Artery-First Approaches inPD
Unlike in artery-rst PD, the standard PD procedure is to
dissect the gastroduodenal artery, perform a bile duct dissection, perform pancreatic dissection, ligate and dissect the
small vessels owing from the pancreatic head to the SMV,
and nally dissect the space between the pancreatic head and
the SMA.In contrast, artery-rst PD is a procedure to separate the pancreatic head from the SMA by ligating and dissecting the blood vessels feeding the it from the SMA,
mainly the rst jejunal artery (FJA) and inferior pancreatoduodenal artery (IPDA) at the root, at an early stage of surgery. The advantages of an artery-rst approach are that
resectability can be determined at an early stage of the procedure and the amount of blood loss during surgery can be
reduced because the feeding vessels are blocked [4–11]. The
relative anatomical position of the pancreatic head to uncinate is dorsal to the origin of the SMA; bleeding from the
SMA or SMV can be fatal. The approach is not always easy,
as it is often accompanied by tumor invasion and inammation. In order to ensure the safety and curative potential of
the procedure, various approaches to the SMA from different
directions have been proposed, and several names have been
given to the same approach. We have modied the terminology summarized by Sanjay etal. [12] and revised it as shown
in Fig.37.1.
37.3 Right-Posterior Approach
For the right-posterior approach, kocherization is performed
rst. (Fig.37.2) The duodenum and the head of the pancreas
D. Ban (*)
Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, National
Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
e-mail: dban@ncc.go.jp
M. Tanabe
Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Graduate
School of Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University,
Tokyo, Japan
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
M. Makuuchi et al. (eds.), The IASGO Textbook of Multi-Disciplinary Management of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Diseases,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0063-1_37
are sufciently mobilized to dissect the fusion fascia of
Treitz, expose the inferior vena cava (IVC) and the origin of
the left renal vein, and proceed with dissection to the aorta.
The pancreatic head is lifted and the brous tissue around the
origin of the SMA is dissected to identify and divide the
IPDA.The SMA is then separated from the uncinate. Further
289

290
Fig. 37.1 Artery-rst approaches for pancreaticoduodenectomy. RP
right-posterior approach, U right-uncinate approach, M mesenteric
approach, LP left-posterior approach
D. Ban and M. Tanabe
postoperative complications [13]. Moreover, the number of
lymph nodes dissected and the rate of R0 resection were the
same for both procedures in both reports, and the prognosis
was not affected.
In laparoscopic PD, some articles described surgical procedure for approaching from the posterior side of the
SMA.Wang etal. reported the usefulness of the inferior duodenal approach [14]. This method approaches from behind
the SMA.The PV/SMV was also exposed from the posterior
side. Honda etal. reported a similar approach that exposed
the posterior aspect of the SMA from the caudal side [15].
37.4 Right-Uncinate Approach
There are many reports on approaching from between the
ventral side of the pancreatic uncinate and the SMV.
(Fig.37.3) Depending on the structure to be identied rst,
the name of the approach varies. Reports that focus on the
pancreatic uncinate are called “uncinate-rst” and those that
focus on the rst jejunal vein (FJV) that ows into the SMV
adjacent to the pancreatic uncinate are called “FJV-rst”.
When dissecting between the pancreatic uncinate and the
SMV, it is necessary to dissect several small veins that ow
into the FJV [16]. After that vein is divided, the inferior pancreatoduodenal artery (IPDA) is dissected to separate the
pancreatic uncinate from the SMA.
In 2007, Shukla etal. reported a complete approach to the
SMA/SMV by dissecting the ligament of Treitz and the
Fig. 37.2 Right posterior artery for pancreaticoduodenectomy
dissection then proceeds in order to expose the PV-SMV.The
advantage of this approach is that it allows for early assessment of resectability by determining the extent to which the
tumor has invaded the SMA plexus prior to treatment of the
intestinal and bile ducts. In addition, appropriate en bloc
resection of the posterior side of the pancreas can be performed. On the other hand, it is easily affected by adhesions
and inammation around the pancreatic head. It is also easily
inuenced by body shape, which may make this procedure
difcult in obese patients.
Dumitrascu etal. compared artery-rst PD with standard
PD [9]. They reported that artery-rst PD can be completed
faster and with less blood loss, and with no difference in
postoperative complications. Figueras etal. conducted a similar study and also found that artery-rst PD required less
time, resulted in less blood loss, again with no difference in
Fig. 37.3 Right posterior artery for pancreaticoduodenectomy. SMA
superior mesenteric artery, SMV superior mesenteric vein

37 Artery-First Approach inPancreaticoduodenectomy
proximal jejunum and passing them to the right under the
superior mesenteric vessels [17]. In 2010, Hackert et al.
reported an “uncinate-rst” approach to rst dissect between
the pancreatic uncinate and SMA [18]. Nakamura et al.
reported that the FJV can be identied rst, after which the
SMA can be accessed for a safer approach. Shrikhande etal.
reported advantages in terms of blood loss, reduced operative time, postoperative complications, lymph node dissection, and margin status.
Although not necessarily artery-rst, there are also many
reports on approaching from the pancreatic uncinate when
performing laparoscopic PD.Zimmitti etal. reported that the
right-uncinate approach is useful as an artery-rst approach
in laparoscopic PD [19, 20]. However, it is also true that the
right-uncinate approach often overlaps with the rightposterior approach in some procedural elements, and it is difcult to clearly classify them. The Cattell-Braasch maneuver
involves dissecting the right-sided white line of Toldt, dissecting the dorsal side of the ascending colon and the mesentery
of the small intestine, and additionally performing sufcient
kocherization to elevate it broadly to the left, including the
pancreatic head of the duodenum. This method ensures that
the root of the SMA can be approached [21, 22]. There is also
the derotation technique by Sugiyama etal. to be considered.
This is a method to expand the mesopancreas to the right side
by generously dissecting the proximal small intestine from
the duodenum, releasing the mesenteric rotation, and extensively pulling the mesopancreas to the right side in order to
reliably approach the root of the artery branching from the
SMA to the pancreatic head [23, 24]. This approach is generally easier to understand anatomically because of the traction
deployment of the pancreatic head, and it is easier to determine the resectability between the SMA and the tumor on the
ventral side of the pancreatic head.
37.5 Mesenteric Approach
In 1993, Nakao etal. proposed a mesenteric approach to pancreatic head resection using a catheter to bypass SMV blood to
the intrahepatic portal vein or systemic circulation as an isolated pancreatectomy. They proposed to call this the mesenteric approach. This method identies the SMA and SMV
through an incision in the fascia over the SMA on the dorsal
side of the transverse mesentery without kocherization, with
or without portal vein bypass; the middle colonic artery arising from the SMA and the middle colonic vein owing into
the SMV are dissected, and the SMA and SMV are widely
separated. (Fig.37.4) Next, the SMA origin is entered from
the right side of the pancreatic uncinate and SMA to widen the
space between the SMA and SMV.This technique is basically
synonymous with the inferior infracacolic approach proposed
by Weitz et al. in 2010. This method can be used to evaluate
291
Fig. 37.4 Mesenteric approach. SMA superior mesenteric artery, SMV
superior mesenteric vein, U uncinate, T-colon transverse colon
resectability by conrming the relationship between the tumor
and SMA in the head of the pancreas at an early stage of surgery. It is undoubtedly useful for tumors in the pancreatic
uncinate area. Unfortunately, whether there is any oncological
benet has not been established. Currently, a randomized controlled trial of this technique compared with standard PD is
underway in Japan, and the results are eagerly awaited [25].
37.6 Left-Posterior Approach
Kurosaki etal. reported data on the left-posterior approach
[26]. After the proximal jejunum and duodenum are dissected and innervated from the left side, the proximal jejunum is towed to the left side, exposing the dorsal side of the
mesentery and the left to dorsal side of the SMA. (Fig.37.5)
The rst jejunal artery arising from the SMA is then dissected at the root. The root of the rst jejunal artery or the
IPDA branching from the rst jejunal artery is also dissected.
Once it is conrmed that there is no tumor invasion between
the pancreatic uncinate and the SMA, the jejunum is dissected. The SMV is not visible in this eld of view, so we
approach it again from the right. Kawabata etal. reported the
oncological benet of the mesenteric approach as well as
resection of the mesopancreatoduodenum [27]. This
approach can be used to reach the SMA without mobilization
of the duodenum or colon and may be particularly useful for
tumors in the pancreatic uncinate. However, this approach is
often difcult by laparoscopy and few cases have been
reported [28].

292
D. Ban and M. Tanabe
Fig. 37.6 Anterior approach. SMA superior mesenteric artery, SMV
superior mesenteric vein, U right-uncinate approach, T-colon transverse
colon
Fig. 37.5 Left-posterior approach. SMA superior mesenteric artery,
SMV superior mesenteric vein, U right-uncinate approach, T-colon
transverse colon
37.7 Anterior Approach
The SMA/SMV is approached anteriorly from the inferior
border of the pancreas, and the SMA secured and pulled to
the left side. The SMV is then secured and pulled to the
right side. The method is to dissect the SMA and the pancreatic uncinate by extracting the tissue between them. In 2010,
Hirota etal. designated this procedure an inferior supracolic
approach, and in the original report, the approach was to
dissect the stomach at the pylorus and the pancreas at the
pancreatic neck, exposing a wide PV-SMV and SMA [29].
The advantage of this method is that it allows for en bloc
resection by isolating the blood vessels without touching the
tumor. However, a disadvantage of the original method as
reported by Hirota etal. was that gastrectomy and pancreatic resection are not always necessary to evaluate resectability. In this sense, it is not clear whether the method of
Hirota etal. can be called artery-rst. In the method reported
by Inoue etal., SMA/SMV is approached prior to the dissection of the digestive tract and pancreatic dissection,
which is truly an artery-rst anterior approach [8].
(Fig.37.6).
37.8 Mesopancreatic Resection
Although various artery-rst techniques have been proposed,
the main objective is to resect the pancreatic head from the
SMA en bloc leaving no residual tumor. Similarly, the con-
cept of resection of the mesopancreas overlaps with the concept of artery-rst. However, the denition of mesopancreas
is often problematic because it is related to the extent of
resection. Gockel etal. referred to the chordae, or ber bundles, between the blood vessels and the pancreas, as the
mesopancreas [30]. It was described as “a vascular-rich connective tissue extending from the dorsal surface of the pancreatic head to the SMV/SMA, histologically containing fat,
sparse connective tissue, and nerve bers”. Kawabata etal.
proposed the concept of mesopancreatoduodenum for the
region including the mesopancreas and the duodenal mesentery up to the left margin of the SMA.They then reported
that there was an oncological benet to be derived from sectioning at the root of the rst jejunal artery to resect the
mesopancreatoduodenum [27]. Wu etal. suggested dividing
the mesopancreas into an anterior part up to the dorsal portal
vein and a posterior part between it and the SMA [31]. In
contrast, Sharma and Isaji pointed out that the term “meso-”
evokes the mesentery (mesorectum, mesocolon, etc.) but is
not an appropriate term because it does not meet the denition of mesentery and is better referred to as pseudomeso-

37 Artery-First Approach inPancreaticoduodenectomy
293
pancreas [32]. However, it is also convincing that it is hard to
abandon the idea that this ber bundle is a membraneenclosed structure. If viewed dorsally, this is because the
celiac plexus and this ber bundle are separated by Treitz’s
posterior pancreatic fascia [33]. Muro et al. [34], through
anatomical analysis of the pancreatic plexus region, revealed
that the bers are quite intricately intertwined and can be
divided into ventral and dorsal portions with different runs.
This led to the proposal to call the layered chord-like structures, together with small blood vessels and lymphatic vessels, the P-A ligament that connects the aorta and its main
branches to the pancreas. In the area surrounding the pancreas, there are many variations in the trajectories of the
arteries, and therefore, the paths of the nerves are also very
complicated.
As mentioned above, the extent of resection of the mesopancreas is quite variable among institutions. The artery-rst
approach is a concept for which it is easier to arrive at a common understanding in respect of the terminology. On the
other hand, it should be noted that the details of the extent of
resection are fraught with problems such as the issue of the
mesopancreas. From this point of view, the Level I, II, and III
classication proposed by Inoue etal. is a very realistic stratication that is one step ahead of artery-rst [35].
37.9 The Outcome ofArtery-First
Approaches
Unfortunately, there still appear to be no high-quality reports
on the short- and long-term surgical outcomes of artery-rst
approaches relative to standard PD. Several retrospective
comparative studies have reported a reduction in operative
time, intraoperative blood loss, and need for blood transfusion [9, 35]. There are reports of improved R0 resection
rates, increased number of resected lymph nodes [27], and
improved prognosis [26]. However, many others have not
been able to show any oncological benet. There have been
several meta-analyses comparing artery-rst PD with standard PD.According to some meta-analyses [36–38], intraoperative blood loss and the proportion of patients requiring
intraoperative transfusions was signicantly lower in the
artery-rst group. Clearly increased R0 resection rates and
overall survival have been reported for artery-rst
PD.However, there were no differences in mortality, and no
differences in tumor pathological factors.
The artery-rst approach is considered to improve R0
resection with respect to SMA margins by reliably dissecting
the SMA nerve plexus in close proximity to the pancreatic
head during dissection from the SMA. The principle that
completes margin-negative resection leads to improved sur-
vival has facilitated the artery-rst approach. It is also
hypothesized that the artery-rst approach reduces intraoperative circulating tumor cells (CTCs), which may contribute
to improved survival. This is based on the theory that the
GDA and IPDA are dissected prior to kocherization, and the
veins are also dissected to prevent the outow of CTCs. A
recent report showed that CTCs in the portal vein were signicantly reduced in 12 patients who underwent artery-rst
PD, and that the MST of standard PD was 13.0 months,
while that of artery-rst PD was improved to 16.7months
[39]. Because of the small size of this cohort, we have to be
careful in the interpretation of these results. In fact, according to a report by Yamamoto et al., among the reports of
artery-rst approaches, kocherization is often preceded by
arterial dissection, and the order of intestinal dissection and
pancreatic dissection varies [40].
There are many reports that the surgical advantage of the
artery-rst approach is that early dissection of the IPDA
prior to dissection of the veins in the outow tract prevents
congestion in the pancreatic head and reduces intraoperative
bleeding. Intraoperative bleeding is a risk factor for postoperative complications, which may have led to a reduction in
postoperative complications in artery-rst PD.
Here, it should be mentioned that there are some limitations to the reports so far, all of which are on non- randomized
and retrospective studies. One of the advantages of the
artery-rst approach is that resectability is determined early
in the surgery, which may result in a relative increase in survival due to the exclusion of advanced cases and hence act as
a selection bias. It is unfortunate that there are few reports on
negative laparotomy; and there seem to be no reports at all
describing the rate of failure to undergo PD after an arteryrst approach. On the other hand, it is also possible that these
reports show biased results reecting the enhanced ability of
the experts in high-volume centers to implement the arteryrst approach. Even though the artery-rst approach is not a
new technique, it is difcult to collate high-quality evidence.
This is due to the heterogeneity in patient backgrounds and
the technical demands made on the surgeons who perform
the procedures. However, an RCT of the mesenteric versus
standard approach is currently underway in Japan, and the
results are eagerly awaited [25].
37.10 Summary
In performing PD for pancreatic head cancer, especially for
advanced pancreatic head cancer, it is essential to consider
(1) curative resection, (2) appropriate evaluation of resectability, and (3) safe resection. Therefore, the approach to the
SMA, which is the most critical stage of the procedure, is the

294
D. Ban and M. Tanabe
key. How to evaluate the status of SMA and tumor in the
pancreatic head at the early stage of surgery and how to
surely and safely proceed are important issues for the performance of safe and curative surgery. Various approaches that
have been proposed have been described in the literature, all
of which have their strengths and weaknesses depending on
the individual condition of the tumor in the pancreatic head
cancer patient. These variables include the size of the tumor,
whether it is ventral or dorsal to the pancreatic head, and
whether it is in the pancreatic uncinate. I believe that most
experts do not stick to a single approach, but rather combine
and use several approaches depending on the situation with
the individual patient. I would like to encourage surgeons
who are learning PD to benet from the approaches that
experts have developed so far, and to become familiar with
multiple approaches to ensure a reliable artery-rst approach.
Conict of Interest Statement There are no conicts of interests for
any of the authors.
References
1. Nakao A, Takagi H. Isolated pancreatectomy for pancreatic head
carcinoma using catheter bypass of the portal vein. HepatoGastroenterology. 1993;40(5):426–9.
2. Pessaux P, Varma D, Arnaud JP. Pancreaticoduodenectomy:
superior mesenteric artery rst approach. J Gastrointest Surg.
2006;10(4):607–11.
3. Weitz J, Rahbari N, Koch M, Buchler MW. The “artery rst”
approach for resection of pancreatic head cancer. J Am Coll Surg.
2010;210(2):e1–4.
4. Kawai M, Tani M, Ina S, et al. CLIP method (preoperative CT
image-assessed ligation of inferior pancreaticoduodenal artery)
reduces intraoperative bleeding during pancreaticoduodenectomy.
World J Surg. 2008;32(1):82–7.
5. Hirono S, Kawai M, Okada KI, etal. Mesenteric approach during
pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2017;1(3):208–18.
6. Nakamura M, Nakashima H, Tsutsumi K, et al. First jejunal
vein oriented mesenteric excision for pancreatoduodenectomy. J
Gastroenterol. 2013;48(8):989–95.
7. Kawabata Y, Nishi T, Tanaka T, Tajima Y.Safety and feasibility of
a pancreaticoduodenectomy with total meso-pancreatoduodenum
excision: analysis in various periampullary disorders. HepatoGastroenterology. 2014;61(131):821–7.
8. Inoue Y, Saiura A, Tanaka M, etal. Technical details of an anterior
approach to the superior mesenteric artery during pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(10):1769–77.
9. Dumitrascu T, David L, Popescu I. Posterior versus standard approach in pancreatoduodenectomy: a case-match study.
Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2010;395(6):677–84.
10. Gundara JS, Wang F, Alvarado-Bachmann R, et al. The clinical
impact of early complete pancreatic head devascularisation during
pancreatoduodenectomy. Am J Surg. 2013;206(4):518–25.
11. Shah OJ, Gagloo MA, Khan IJ, Ahmad R, Bano S.Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparison of superior approach with classical Whipple’s technique. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int.
2013;12(2):196–203.
12. Sanjay P, Takaori K, Govil S, Shrikhande SV, Windsor JA.
‘Artery-rst’ approaches to pancreatoduodenectomy. Br J Surg.
2012;99(8):1027–35.
13. Figueras J, Codina-Barreras A, Lopez-Ben S, etal. Cephalic duodenopancreatectomy in periampullary tumours. Dissection of the
superior mesenteric artery as aninitial approach. Description of
the technique and an assessment of our initial experience. Cir Esp.
2008;83(4):186–93.
14. Wang XM, Sun WD, Hu MH, et al. Inferoposterior duodenal
approach for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J
Gastroenterol. 2016;22(6):2142–8.
15. Honda G, Kurata M, Okuda Y, Kobayashi S, Sakamoto K,
Takahashi K. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: taking
advantage of the unique view from the caudal side. J Am Coll Surg.
2013;217(6):e45–9.
16. Nakata K, Higuchi R, Ikenaga N, etal. Precision anatomy for safe
approach to pancreatoduodenectomy for both open and minimally
invasive procedure: a systematic review. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat
Sci. 2022;29(1):99–113.
17. Shukla PJ, Barreto G, Pandey D, et al. Modication in the technique of pancreaticoduodenectomy: supracolic division of jejunum
to facilitate uncinate process dissection. Hepato-Gastroenterology.
2007;54(78):1728–30.
18. Hackert T, Werner J, Weitz J, Schmidt J, Buchler MW.Uncinate
process rst--a novel approach for pancreatic head resection.
Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2010;395(8):1161–4.
19. Morales E, Zimmitti G, Codignola C, et al. Follow “the superior
mesenteric artery”: laparoscopic approach for total mesopancreas excision during pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc.
2019;33(12):4186–91.
20. Zimmitti G, Manzoni A, Addeo P, et al. Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric artery-rst approach and
pancreatogastrostomy assisted by mini-laparotomy. Surg Endosc.
2016;30(4):1670–1.
21. Akita M, Yamasaki N, Miyake T, et al. Cattell-Braasch maneuver facilitates the artery-rst approach and complete excision
of the mesopancreas for pancreatoduodenectomy. J Surg Oncol.
2020;121(7):1126–31.
22. Del Chiaro M, Segersvard R, Rangelova E, et al. CattellBraasch Maneuver combined with artery-rst approach for superior mesenteric- portal vein resection during pancreatectomy. J
Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(12):2264–8.
23. Sugiyama M, Suzuki Y, Nakazato T, et al. Vascular anatomy of
mesopancreas in pancreatoduodenectomy using an intestinal derotation procedure. World J Surg. 2020;44(10):3441–8.
24. Sugiyama M, Suzuki Y, Nakazato T, et al. Intestinal derotation procedure for facilitating pancreatoduodenectomy. Surgery.
2016;159(5):1325–32.
25. Hirono S, Kawai M, Okada KI, etal. MAPLE-PD trial (mesenteric
approach vs. conventional approach for pancreatic cancer during
pancreaticoduodenectomy): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 354 patients with pancreatic ductal
adenocarcinoma. Trials. 2018;19(1):613.
26. Kurosaki I, Minagawa M, Takano K, Takizawa K, Hatakeyama
K.Left posterior approach to the superior mesenteric vascular pedicle in pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer of the pancreatic head.
JOP. 2011;12(3):220–9.
27. Kawabata Y, Tanaka T, Nishi T, Monma H, Yano S, Tajima
Y. Appraisal of a total meso-pancreatoduodenum excision with
pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head carcinoma. Eur J
Surg Oncol. 2012;38(7):574–9.
28. Nagakawa Y, Watanabe Y, Kozono S, etal. Surgical approaches to
the superior mesenteric artery during minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat
Sci. 2022;29(1):114–23.
29. Hirota M, Kanemitsu K, Takamori H, et al. Pancreatoduodenectomy using a no-touch isolation technique. Am J Surg.
2010;199(5):e65–8.
30. Gockel I, Domeyer M, Wolloscheck T, Konerding MA, Junginger
T.Resection of the mesopancreas (RMP): a new surgical clas-
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
