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_775_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
46 Мб
Скачать
43 Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy
339

43.3 Conclusion

Robotic procedures have changed all elds of surgery includ­ing visceral and pancreatic surgery in the last two decades. Today, robotic PD has gained acceptance in many centers, mainly for standard PD, although also extended PD resections are possible after passing a considerable learning curve. Due to the currently available mostly observational studies, the level of evidence regarding short- and long-term results of robotic PD compared to open PD is still low. The present stud­ies conrm the feasibility of robotic PD and postulate poten­tial advantages associated with the minimally-invasive nature of the operation. These include less blood loss, earlier mobili­zation and shorter hospital stay. To conrm such conclusions, RCTs are warranted and currently being planned or already recruiting to create more high-level evidence in the near future.

References

1. Mack MJ. Minimally invasive and robotic surgery. JAMA. 2001;285:568–72.
2. Gagner M, Pomp A.Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreato­duodenectomy. Surg Endosc. 1994;8(5):408–10.
3. Poves I, Burdio F, Morato O, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open approach for pancreato­duodenectomy: the PADULAP randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2018;268(5):731–9.
4. Palanivelu C, Senthilnathan P, Sabnis SC, etal. Randomized clini­cal trial of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumours. Br J Surg. 2017;104(11):1443–50.
5. van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Bosscha K, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, ran­domised controlled phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4(3):199–207.
6. Nickel F, Haney CM, Kowalewski KF, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2020;271(1):54–66.
7. Joyce D, Morris-Stiff G, Falk GA, El-Hayek K, Chalikonda S, Walsh RM.Robotic surgery of the pancreas. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(40):14726–32.
8. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, Sbrana F, Cecconi S, Balestracci T, Caravaglios G. Robotics in general surgery: per­sonal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg. 2003;138(7):777–84.
9. Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA, Bartlett DL, Zenati M, Zeh HJ 3rd. 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg. 2013;258(4):554–9; discussion 559–62.
10. Kirchberg J, Weitz J. Evidence for robotic surgery in oncological visceral surgery. Chirurg. 2019;90(5):379–86.
11. Giulianotti PC, Mangano A, Bustos RE, etal. Educational step­by- step surgical video about operative technique in robotic pan­creaticoduodenectomy (RPD) at University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC): 17 steps standardized technique-lessons learned since the rst worldwide RPD performed in the year 2001. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(6):2758–62.
12. Liu R, Wakabayashi G, Palanivelu C, etal. International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2019;8(4):345–60.
13. Tol JA, Gouma DJ, Bassi C, etal. Denition of a standard lymph­adenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a consensus statement by the international study group on pancreatic surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2014;156(3):591–600.
14. Hackert T, Strobel O, Michalski CW, etal. The TRIANGLE opera­tion - radical surgery after neoadjuvant treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer: a single arm observational study. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19(11):1001–7.
15. Hackert T, Werner J, Weitz J, etal. Uncinate process rst--a novel approach for pancreatic head resection. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2010;395(8):1161–4.
16. Kim AC, Rist RC, Zureikat AH.Technical detail for robot assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Vis Exp. 2019;(151) https://doi.
org/10.3791/60261.
17. Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y, etal. A multi-institutional com­parison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreatico­duodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2016;264(4):640–9.
18. van Oosten AF, Ding D, Habib JR, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity-matched analysis to open and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25(7):1795–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11605- 020- 04869- z.
19. Zhao W, Liu C, Li S, Geng D, Feng Y, Sun M.Safety and efcacy for robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy and dis­tal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Oncol. 2018;27(3):468–78.
20. Baimas-George M, Watson M, Murphy KJ, etal. Robotic pancre­aticoduodenectomy may offer improved oncologic outcomes over open surgery: a propensity-matched single-institution study. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(8):3644–9.
21. Guerra F, Checcacci P, Vegni A, etal. Surgical and oncological out­comes of our rst 59 cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Visc Surg. 2019;156(3):185–90.
22. Zureikat AH, Beane JD, Zenati MS, etal. 500 minimally invasive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies: one decade of optimizing per­formance. Ann Surg. 2021;273(5):966–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/
SLA.0000000000003550.
23. Nassour I, Winters SB, Hoehn R, etal. Long-term oncologic out­comes of robotic and open pancreatectomy in a national cohort of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2020;122(2):234–42.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.25958.
24. Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Menonna F, et al. Robotic pancreato­duodenectomy with vascular resection. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2016;401(8):1111–22.
25. Giulianotti PC, Addeo P, Buchs NC, et al. Robotic extended pan­createctomy with vascular resection for locally advanced pancreatic tumors. Pancreas. 2011;40(8):1264–70.
26. Marino MV, Giovinazzo F, Podda M, etal. Robotic-assisted pan­creaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection. Description of the surgical technique and analysis of early outcomes. Surg Oncol. 2020;35:344–50.
27. Rice MK, Hodges JC, Bellon J, et al. Association of mentorship and a formal robotic prociency skills curriculum with subsequent generations’ learning curve and safety for robotic pancreaticoduo­denectomy. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(7):607–15.
28. Schmidt CR, Harris BR, Musgrove KA, et al. Formal robotic training diminishes the learning curve for robotic pancreatoduo­denectomy: implications for new programs in complex robotic sur­gery. J Surg Oncol. 2021;123(2):375–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jso.26284.

Duodenum-Preserving Pancreatic Head Resection

ElenaUsova
44
Abstract
Duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) remains a rare procedure even for high volume centers since its clinical implementation in 1979. Reports on this surgery are scattered and present mostly as sporadic sys­tematic reviews and case reports/case series. Terminology for those procedures varies among authors. Present chap­ter aims to pool current knowledge and give an idea of anatomical and surgical fundamentals of DPPHR.Latter one needs meticulous knowledge of vascular anatomy of pancreatic head and adjacent organs and might become technically more challenging when compared to pancre­aticoduodenectomy. Postoperative complication rate and location of the lesion are other contributing factors to lim­ited use of DPPHR.Limited pancreatic resection is useful mostly for benign focal pancreatic lesions and chronic pancreatitis. Exposure of main pancreatic duct and/or common bile duct and their subsequent management require large experience in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery that feels to be never enough. Author is hoping to expand the knowledge of the reader on DPPHR and promote organ-sparing technique for benign lesions just like it has become in regard to liver surgery of last decade. Any fur­ther comments and suggestions will be appreciated.
Duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPRH) has not been precisely dened or classied in the literature or existing guidelines. Roughly, it can be dened as the proce­dure with either total or partial resection of the pancreatic head parenchyma and with preservation of the duodenum or its segmental resection. According to the pioneer of DPPHR, Hans Beger, a total DPPHR involves resection of the pancre-
E. Usova (*) International Association of Surgeons, Gastroenterologists and Oncologists, Kyoto, Japan
atic head conserving the pancreatic neck. Peripapillary seg­ment of the duodenum and the intrapancreatic common bile duct segment might be either resected or preserved [1]. In case of the former, three anastomoses are required; i.e., end­to- end duodenum to duodenum, end-to-side common bile duct (CBD) to postpyloric duodenum and end-to-side pan­creaticointestinal anastomoses, in addition to Roux-en-Y jejuno-jejunostomy.
Unlike the total one, a partial DPPHR includes limited resection of the pancreatic head parenchyma with preserva­tion of the duodenum and common bile duct and parts of the ventral or dorsal pancreatic head tissue or resection only of the tumour bearing tissue of the uncinate process [2]. An anastomosis between the pancreatic head and an excluded jejunal loop is necessary in either case.
44.1 History ofDPPHR
Role of the pioneer of DPPHR may belong to Beger. In 1972 he started his dog experiments on subtotal pancreatic head resection. First report on in-human use of this procedure has been done in 1980 by the same author [1]. Surgery was per­formed in 12 patients: nine of them experienced chronic pan­creatitis (CP) and three underwent DPPHR for suspected malignancy and pathology showed benign lesions. Author reported no clinical lethality with 75% rate of complete recovery 3years after surgery. A total DPPHR removing pan­creatic head parenchyma completely was suggested by Imaizumi in 1990 [3]. Later on, Nakao argued that blood sup­ply to the duodenum and common bile duct is compromised signicantly during a total DPPHR to cause ischemic necro­sis of them and that a segmental duodenectomy is required to avoid this complication [4]. He proposed this procedure as a pancreatic head resection with segmental duodenectomy (PHRSD) and distinguished PHRSD from DPPHR.
DPPHR for CP became a standard of care soon after its implementation into clinical practice [5]. The most likely
© 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_44
341
342
E. Usova
reason is that surgery has been done to patients with brotic changes of pancreatic tissue thus mostly giving the sense of safety to the surgeon in light of postoperative pancreatic s­tula. Recent systematic review and meta-analysis includes 797 patients with DPPHR for CP in 15 studies [6].
However, DPPHR for focal lesions of pancreatic head remains of limited use even in high volume centers partly because it demands meticulous technique to dissect along the mostly intact pancreatic parenchyma. Thus, further in this chapter author wants to focus specically on DPPHR for focal lesions. To date, as of last review by Beger etal., totally 523 cases of DPPHR for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic neoplasms within 26 cohort studies have been identied [7]. Minimally invasive or robotic-assisted approach has been used in 37 of 523 (7.1%) patients.
Progress in technologies for minimally invasive surgery and advanced techniques made it possible to perform a lapa­roscopic DPPHR as performed in 2004 and published in 2007 by Takaori [8]. In his rst laparoscopic DPPHR, how­ever, the case was converted into open for reconstruction, specically for pancreaticojejunostomy, using a small lapa­rotomy incision. As of nowadays, a totally laparoscopic DPPHR including laparoscopic reconstruction has been per­formed sporadically by several surgeons including the pres­ent author and this minimally invasive procedure has been indicated for IPMN, neuroendocrine tumors and other non­invasive neoplasms of the pancreatic head.
Robotic pancreatic surgery became notable for DPPHR in 2012 [9]. Peng etal. presented four cases of DPPHR: one for CP and three for benign pancreatic neoplasms. As of 2018, he reported 34 patients to undergo this procedure while cur­rently it remains the largest single center experience [10].
44.2 Classication
As for now, DPPHR can be classied as total, subtotal, and partial ones. In the rst scenario, the duodenum can be either totally preserved or resected segmentally. Subtotal DPPHR presumes to spare duodenum and to either spare common bile duct (CBD) or perform its resection along with resection of the pancreatic head leaving only the thin layer of pancre­atic tissue along the duodenum. Partial DPPHR usually spares all the above structures.
44.3 Blood Supply toPancreatic Head
andPertinent Adjacent Organs
It is well known that pancreatic head blood supply goes from celiac axis (CA) and superior mesenteric artery (SMA). Likewise, there is no need for expert pancreatic surgeons to
recall where all the pancreaticoduodenal arteries (PDAs) arise from. Nonetheless, some aspects of blood supply to pertinent segments of the pancreas, CBD and duodenum, especially those vulnerable for ischemia, need to be mentioned.
Description of vascular anatomy of the pancreas goes back to 1748 when Haller described anterior and posterior arches (arcades between CA and SMA) [11]. Since then, not many studies have been done on this specic issue using post-mortem specimens. Falconer and Grifths investigated 50 specimens (27 dissections and 23 injection-corrosion preparations) [12]. In all the cases, gastroduodenal artery (GDA) gave rise to the anterior vessel, the anterior superior pancreaticoduodenal artery (ASPDA), which went over the head of the pancreas inferiorly toward duodenopancreatic sulcus and then medially in the groove, and posteriorly along the gland. Anastomosis was present behind the uncinate pro­cess with an anterior inferior pancrearticoduodenal artery (AIPDA). Posterior superior pancreaticoduodenal artery (PSPDA) was present in 25 dissections. In all but two cases (when it was arising from hepatic branch of SMA) PSPDA originated 1.5cm distally to the origin of GDA.Then PSPDA went backwards over the upper border of the pancreas in front of the CBD along the posterior pancreaticoduodenal sulcus followed by leaving the latter shortly and going medi­ally across the posterior surface of the pancreatic head and creating an anastomosis with the posterior inferior pancreati­coduodenal artery (PIPDA).
Bertelli etal. did summarize anatomy and nomenclature of pancreas blood supply over past two centuries based on over 1000 angiographic studies [1316]. This is the classic anatomy we use nowadays. Typically, blood supply to the head of the pancreas goes from CA (via ASPDA and PSPDA as its terminal branches) and SMA (via AIPDA and PIPDA as its terminal branches) with arcade formation anteriorly and posteriorly. Authors also emphasize on the dorsal pan­creatic artery (known also as Haller’s artery) as a source of blood supply to pancreatic head originating from either splenic artery (most commonly), or CHA, or CA, or SMA, or other smaller visceral artery [17]. Its right terminal branch goes behind the superior mesenteric vein and then passes along anterior surface of pancreatic head. Before supplying pancreatic head, it forms prepancreatic arch, anastomosing with branch of the GDA, AS PDA or right gastroepiploic artery.
Furukawa etal. highlighted in their study blood supply to the pancreatic head taking into consideration its embryogen­esis by computed tomography during arteriography, speci­cally its derivation from the ventral (smaller) and dorsal (larger) buds [18]. The former one corresponds to caudal part of pancreatic head and equals to uncinate process and gets blood supply from SMA (inferior PDAs, respectively) while
44 Duodenum-Preserving Pancreatic Head Resection
343
the latter one is supplied by CA (superior PDAs, respec­tively) and equals to cephalic part of the head of the pan­creas. Blood supply to CBD and ampulla of Vater is provided by CA, specically by PSPDA, which is located along the intrapancreatic bile duct. Proximal part of the duodenum gets supply from CA, while distal part gets the one from SMA.According to the study, the boundary between those two areas was in the second part of the duodenum in 56%, in the third in 40%, and in fourth part in 4% of cases, respec­tively. Duodenum, mainly its rst portion and proximal part of the second portion, also gets blood supply from the supra­duodenal artery arising from GDA, and from retroduodenal artery arising from the PSPDA [19]. Those two are espe­cially important to be preserved during DPPHR. Another study from Japan showed the presence of arcade formation between the ASPDA and the AIPDA in 100% of cases as well as between PSPDA and PIPDA in 88%, consequently. There was also found the membrane on the posterior aspect of the pancreas head where all of the PDAs were situated. One of the important details depicted in the study was that ASPDA eventually turns to the posterior aspect of the pan­creas and joins there AIPDA [20]. Authors emphasize on the crucial role of the above membrane preservation to spare the blood supply to duodenum as well as PDAs themselves.
44.4 Technical Aspects ofTotal DPPHR
A total DPPHR is a procedure which requires removing all the pancreatic head tissue. In order to approach head of the pancreas, transection of gastrocolic ligament should be done along with access to lesser sac regardless of type of DPPHR.
Major pitfall of this procedure is how to preserve duode­nal blood supply to avoid its ischemia. Given the descrip­tion by Imaizumi, Kocher’s maneuver should not be done [3, 21]. Nonetheless, author recommends ligation of GDA and right gastroepiploic artery along with sparing mesodu­odenal vessels, especially when resecting uncinate process. Main pancreatic duct (MPD) and CBD are ligated extramu­rally followed by end-to-side pancreaticoduodenostomy and cholodochoduodenostomy, both with second part of duodenum. For the above procedure duodenum is totally preserved.
Nakao suggested 3–4cm segmental duodenectomy along with both papilla resection for PHRSD to avoid duodenal ischemia [4]. Conservation of right gastric artery and AIPDA is required. Surgery is completed with pancreaticogastros­tomy, end-to-end duodenoduodenostomy and end-to-side choledochoduodenostomy.
Takaori emphasized on preservation of PSPDA and PIPDA while ASPDA was divided at the origin of GDA. Hence, blood supply to the duodenum was preserved [8].
Hirata etal. when describing their technique of pylorus­preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy emphasize that preser­vation of retroduodenal artery arising from PSPDA and supplying rst and proximal portion of second part of duode­num is critical, and ligation site should be after its root [18]. Likewise, Takada etal. claimed that PSPDA to be preserved while they avoided Kocher’s maneuver [22].
Kim etal. demonstrated feasibility of total DPPHR with CBD preservation, however long-term outcomes as inci­dence of bile duct stenosis have not been reported but one during early postoperative course [23]. Authors advocate on sparing of all but ASPDA.
In general, type of anastomosis for pancreas remnant with gut as well as bile duct anastomosis is not a matter of discus­sion. None of the technique has been demonstrated as being safer [24]. The techniques highlighted above are preferences of each author. Aspects that matter are extent of parenchyma resection and preservation of blood supply to adjacent organs.
44.5 Technical Aspects ofSubtotal DPPHR
A subtotal DPPHR, described as a typical Beger procedure, presumes preservation of thin layer of the pancreatic tissue of about 5–8mm adjacent to the duodenum along with com­plete parenchyma transection followed by Roux-en-Y pan­creaticojejunostomy [25]. The authors advocated that there is no need to preserve GDA.In turn, blood supply through supraduodenal vessels and dorsal duodenopancreatic arcade along with mesoduodenal vessels blood ow should be spared.
Unlike Beger procedure, its Bern modication leaves bridge of pancreatic tissue in front of superior mesenteric vein as well as opened both MPD and CBD followed by end­to- side anastomosis of pancreatic head with the jejunum including both ducts [26]. Kocher’s maneuver and preserva­tion of the entire duodenum is performed in both cases. Both procedures have become useful for CP with occasional use for benign or low-grade focal pancreatic lesions.
44.6 Technical Aspects ofPartial DPPHR
A partial DPPHR is a procedure designed for benign and low-grade focal pancreatic lesions [27]. However, due to numerous technical aspects and sometimes being unsure about malignant potential of the lesion, surgeons tend to pre­fer Whipple procedure over DPPHR.In young patients with benign/low-grade pancreatic head lesions Whipple proce­dure seems to be excessive while removing organs not perti­nent to the disease itself.
344
ab
E. Usova
Fig. 44.1 (a) Abdominal 3D CT measured a 3mm distance of pancre-
atic head mass (red) to MPD (purple) as well as demonstrated aberrant vascular anatomy of CA (yellow) giving rise to right hepatic artery, left
Extent of pancreatic head parenchyma resection can be dened as partial by extrapolating extent of pancreatic parenchyma resection for other types of surgery when com­paring pancreatic function during long-term follow-up [28]. In order to get satisfactory endocrine and exocrine function in most cases resection of no more than 50% of pancreatic head parenchyma is recommended. Enucleation cannot be included into partial DPPHR as it doesn’t pre­sume resection of pancreatic tissue. In contrast, uncinatec­tomy represents a typical partial DPPHR.We recommend to avoid MPD exposure when possible during partial DPPHR. This is usually feasible with tumor distance to MPD of more than 2mm.
Here is an example of partial DPPHR.Approach to pan­creatic head was the same as described above. Surgery became a challenge due to intraparenchymal location of the tumor and its close proximity to MPD (Fig. 44.1a, b). Pancreatic lesion had been additionally visualized using intraoperative US (Fig.44.2). Kocherization of duodenum has been done given that PDA arcades (between both ante­rior and both posterior PDAs) were preserved. Patient under­went partial DPPHR with preservation of MPD integrity. Lesion was excised with small portion of pancreatic paren­chyma followed by Roux-en-Y pancreaticojejunostomy using simple interrupted suture (Fig. 44.3a, b). Pathology revealed proinsulin-only secreting tumor.
hepatic artery, splenic artery, left gastric artery, and transverse pancre­atic artery. (b) Abdominal MRI.Hyperintense pancreatic head mass in close proximity to MPD on its posterior surface
Fig. 44.2 Intraoperative US revealed hypovascular pancreatic head
lesion close to MPD
44.7 Outcomes ofDPPHR
For CP there is a sufcient number of studies highlighting short- and long-term outcomes. First randomized trial has been published by authors from Ulm and Bern [29]. The authors compared patients randomly assigned to either pylorus- preserving Whipple group or DPPHR group.
44 Duodenum-Preserving Pancreatic Head Resection
345
a
Fig. 44.3 (a) Pancreatic head bed after resection. (b) Macroscopic specimen of pancreatic head lesion
There was no postoperative mortality in both groups. Postoperative complication rate was 20% and 15%, respectively. However, patients who underwent DPPHR showed favourable long- term outcomes as less pain, greater weight gain, a better glucose tolerance, and a higher insulin secretion capacity. Authors also emphasize on preservation of duodenum as crucial factor for further intact glucose metabolism.
About two decades later, the same authors published mul­ticentre, randomised, controlled, double-blind trial focusing mostly on long-term outcomes of surgery for CP comparing DPPHR vs partial pancreatectomy [30]. There was no differ­ence in morbidity, mortality, and quality of life 24 months after surgery in DPPHR vs partial pancreaticoduodenectomy group. However, being a more denitive treatment, a partial pancreaticoduodenectomy was associated with fewer read­missions due to ongoing or recurrent pancreatitis.
Another meta-analysis on CP demonstrated that DPPHR has been shown to have more benets over conventional pan­creaticoduodenectomy/pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduo­denectomy in reducing prevalence of endocrine insufciency, delayed gastric emptying, and duration of postoperative stay, as well as increasing quality of life for patients, consequently. However, there was no signicant differences between two groups in prevalence of pain relief, development of pancre­atic stula, wound infection, or exocrine insufciency, as well as mortality rate [6].
As for DPPHR for focal premalignant and low-grade malignant neoplasms with IPMN as being the most frequent, according to meta-analysis, severe complication rate has been reported as 8.9% for total DPPHR and 13.9% for sub-
b
total DPPHR. Overall in-hospital and late mortality with mean follow-up over 47 months were 0.6% and 1.5%, respectively [7].
As for long-term outcomes, single center study on functional results after various types of pancreas resection for neuroendocrine neoplasms found body mass index (BMI) to be the strongest predictor of postoperative dia­betes mellitus (DM) with greater BMI being the greater risk for development of DM [28]. In addition, patients with advanced age, male gender, and non-functioning tumor were more prone to develop postoperative DM. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of predic­tors of postoperative pancreatic exocrine insufciency showed that the extent of pancreatic parenchyma resec­tion was the only independent predictor of postoperative pancreatic exocrine insufciency.
Sporadic single center studies done before ChroPac pre­sumed that quality of life and some other long-term variables after DPPHR for CP are above those after pancreaticoduode­nectomy [30, 31]. However, non-randomized nature and other disadvantages like possible experimenter expectancy bias do not allow to support this hypothesis.
ChroPac study showing the outcomes of DPPHR for CP made it clear that most of those patients present with latent or prominent impairment of pancreatic function before surgery. In contrast, there are no similar studies yet for focal pancre­atic lesions with intact parenchyma surrounding the tumors. This might cause a major argument over the organ- preserving surgery, especially in young patients. Our experience of DPPHR favors this procedure for specic patients as men­tioned above.
346
E. Usova

References

1. Beger HG, Witte C, Krautzberger W, etal. Erfahrung mit einer das Duodenum erhaltenden Pankreaskopfresektion bei chronischer Pankreatitis. Chirurg. 1980;51:303–7.
2. Beger HG, Siech M, Poch B, Mayer B, Schoenberg MH.Limited surgery for benign tumours of the pancreas: a systematic review. World J Surg. 2015;39(6):1557–66.
3. Imaizumi T, Hanyu F, Suzuki M, etal. A new procedure: duode­numpreserving total resection of the head of the pancreas with pancreaticocholedocho-duodenostomy. J Bil Tract Pancreas. 1990;11:621–6. (In Japanese)
4. Nakao A. Pancreatic head resection with segmental duodenec­tomy and preservation of the gastroduodenal artery. Hepato­Gastroenterology. 1998;45(20):533–5.
5. Büchler MW, Friess H, Müller MW, Beger HG.Die duodenumer­haltende Pankreaskopfresektion: Eine neue Standardoperation bei chronischer Pankreatitis [Duodenum preserving resection of the head of the pancreas: a new standard operation in chronic pancreati­tis]. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl Kongressbd. 1997;114:1081–3.
6. Zhao Y, Zhang J, Lan Z, et al. Duodenum-preserving resection of the pancreatic head versus pancreaticoduodenectomy for treat­ment of chronic pancreatitis with enlargement of the pancre­atic head: systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:3565438.
7. Beger HG, Mayer B, Poch B. Parenchyma-sparing, local pan­creatic head resection for premalignant and low-malignant neo­plasms - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2018;216(6):1182–91.
8. Takaori K, Tanigawa N. Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: the past, present, and future. Surg Today. 2007;37:535–45.
9. Peng CH, Shen BY, Deng XX, Zhan Q, Han B, Li HW.Early expe­rience for the robotic duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resec­tion. World J Surg. 2012;36(5):1136–41.
10. Jiang Y, Jin JB, Zhan Q, Deng XX, Peng CH, Shen BY. Robot­assisted duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection with pancreaticogastrostomy for benign or premalignant pancre­atic head lesions: a single-centre experience. Int J Med Robot. 2018;14(4):e1903.
11. von Haller A. Elementa physiologiae corporis humani, Tome VI.Societatistipographicae, Bemae; 1764. pp.431–432.
12. Falconer CW, Grifths E.The anatomy of the blood-vessels in the region of the pancreas. Br J Surg. 1950;37(147):334–44.
13. Bertelli E, Di Gregorio F, Bertelli L, Mosca S. The arterial blood supply of the pancreas: a review. I.The superior pancreaticoduode­nal and the anterior superior pancreaticoduodenal arteries. An ana­tomical and radiological study. Surg Radiol Anat. 1995;17(2):97–3.
14. Bertelli E, Di Gregorio F, Bertelli L, Civeli L, Mosca S.The arterial blood supply of the pancreas: a review. II.The posterior superior pancreaticoduodenal artery. An anatomical and radiological study. Surg Radiol Anat. 1996;18(1):1–9.
15. Bertelli E, Di Gregorio F, Bertelli L, Civeli L, Mosca S. The arterial blood supply of the pancreas: a review. III. The inferior pancreaticoduodenal artery. An anatomical review and a radiologi­cal study. Surg Radiol Anat. 1996;18(2):67–74.
16. Bertelli E, Di Gregorio F, Bertelli L, Orazioli D, Bastianini A.The arterial blood supply of the pancreas: a review. IV. The anterior inferior and posterior pancreaticoduodenal aa., and minor sources
of blood supply for the head of the pancreas. An anatomical review and radiologic study. Surg Radiol Anat. 1997;19(4):203–12.
17. Bertelli E, Di Gregorio F, Mosca S, etal. The arterial blood sup­ply of the pancreas: a review. V.The dorsal pancreatic artery. Surg Radiol Anat. 1998;20:445–52.
18. Furukawa H, Iwata R, Moriyama N, Kosuge T. Blood sup­ply to the pancreatic head, bile duct, and duodenum: evalua­tion by computed tomography during arteriography. Arch Surg. 1999;134(10):1086–90.
19. Hirata K, Mukaiya M, Kimura M, et al. The anatomy of the parapancreaticoduodenal vessels and the introduction of a new pylorus- preserving pancreatoduodenectomy with increased vessel preservation. J Hep Bil Pancr Surg. 1994;1:335–41.
20. Kimura W, Nagai H.Study of surgical anatomy for duodenum­preserving resection of the head of the pancreas. Ann Surg. 1995;221(4):359–63.
21. Imaizumi T, Hanyu F, Suzuki M.A new procedure for duodenum­preserving total resection of the head of the pancreas with pan­creaticocholedochoduodenostomy. In: Beger HG, Büchler M, Malfertheiner P, editors. Standards in pancreatic surgery. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1993.
22. Takada T, Yasuda H, Uchiyama K, Hasegawa H. Duodenum­preserving pancreatoduodenostomy. A new technique for complete excision of the head of the pancreas with preservation of biliary and alimentary integrity. Hepato-Gastroenterology. 1993;40(4):356–9.
23. Kim SW, Kim KH, Jang JY, Park S, Park YH.Practical guidelines for the preservation of the pancreaticoduodenal arteries during duodenum- preserving resection of the head of the pancreas: clinical experience and a study using resected specimens from pancreatico­duodenectomy. Hepato-Gastroenterology. 2001;48(37):264–9.
24. Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Maher MM, etal. A prospective randomized trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 1995;222(4):580–92.
25. Büchler M, Friess H, Jseumann R, Bittner R, Beger HG.Duodenum­preserving resection of the head of the pancreas: the Ulm experi­ence. In: Beger HG, Büchler M, Malfertheiner P, editors. Standards in pancreatic surgery. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1993.
26. Gloor B, Friess H, Uhl W, Büchler MW.A modied technique of the Beger and Frey procedure in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Dig Surg. 2001;18(1):21–5.
27. Beger HG, Mayer B, Rau BM. Parenchyma-sparing, limited pancreatic head resection for benign tumors and low-risk peri­ampullary cancer--a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(1):206–17.
28. Andreasi V, Partelli S, Capurso G, etal. Long-term pancreatic func­tional impairment after surgery for neuroendocrine neoplasms. J Clin Med. 2019;8(10):1611.
29. Büchler MW, Friess H, Müller MW, Wheatley AM, Beger HG. Randomized trial of duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection versus pylorus-preserving Whipple in chronic pancreati­tis. Am J Surg. 1995;169(1):65–70.
30. Diener MK, Hüttner FJ, Kieser M, et al. Partial pancreatoduode­nectomy versus duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection in chronic pancreatitis: the multicentre, randomised, controlled, double-blind ChroPac trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10099):1027–37.
31. Witzigmann H, Max D, Uhlmann D, etal. Quality of life in chronic pancreatitis: a prospective trial comparing classical whipple pro­cedure and duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2002;6:173–80.
Artery-First Approaches toDistal Pancreatectomy
KyoichiTakaori, YosukeKasai, andKenjiYoshino
45
Abstract
Artery-rst approaches to pancreatic resections have been widely practiced in the setting of a pancrearticoduodenectomy or Whipple procedure for pancreatic cancer. The purposes of artery-rst approaches are to determine the resectability in the early phase of operation, to perform more oncologic resection by isolation of the tumor from the blood ow and to reduce the intraoperative blood loss. Until recently, however, artery approaches to a distal pancreatectomy (DP) have been scarcely performed due to the difculty in approaching the origin of the splenic artery before the transection of the pancreas especially in open surgery. In contrast, by laparoscopic approaches, a surgeon can enter the retroperitoneal space behind the pancreatic body taking advantage of the caudo-cranial angle view through a laparoscope and explore the origin of the celiac artery from the aorta and the origin of the splenic artery without dividing the pancreas. The same approaches can be carried out in open sur­gery also with techniques, so-called “Tiger Den” approach, as follows. First, we divide the ligament of Treitz and mobilize the fourth portion of the duodenum and proximal jejunum. The adi­pose tissue in the retroperitoneal space is dissected and the infe­rior vena cava (IVC) is exposed. The mesentery of the transverse colon is also divided along the posterior border of the pancreatic body, the dissection over the IVC is extended to the left and the left renal vein is exposed. By careful dissections over the aorta, a surgeon can identify the origin of superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and that of the celiac artery. Large Kelly forceps can be passed through the retroperitoneal space behind the pancreatic body toward the left side of the left gastric artery. A Penrose drain is passed thorough the retroperitoneal space and the pan­creatic body is lifted upward by the Penrose drain as this proce-
K. Takaori (*) · Y. Kasai · K. Yoshino Department of Surgery, Nagahama City Hospital Nagahama, Japan
Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan e-mail: takaori@iasgo.org
dure is called a hanging maneuver of the pancreas. By the hanging maneuver, the origin of the celiac artery is well visual­ized. The splenic artery is temporally occluded to isolate the specimen from blood inow. In cases that en bloc resection of the celiac artery is required due to the extension of the tumor, the celiac artery occluded with bulldog clamps, the blood ow of intrahepatic arteries evaluated with Doppler ultrasonography, the celiac artery is to be ligated or clipped after the conrmation of sufcient arterial blood ow to the liver. After the occlusion of the splenic artery or celiac artery for a conventional DP or distal pancreactectomy with celiac artery resection (DP-CAR), respectively, the pancreas is divided at the designated part, typi­cally in front of the superior mesenteric vein (SMV). The splenic vein is divided and the pancreatic body is apped to the left side. The pancreatic body is dissected together with posterior tissue. The splenic artery, which had been already occluded, is now divided for DP, while the celiac artery and common hepatic artery are divided for DP-CAR.During DP-CAR, the left gas­tric artery is also divided if the origin of the left gastric artery is involved by the tumor. When needed, the left adrenal gland is resected en bloc and the tail of the pancreas and the spleen are dissected to complete DP or DP-CAR.In conclusion, the Tiger Den approach and the hanging maneuver of the pancreas are useful for artery-rst approaches to DP and DP-CAR.

45.1 Introduction

Prognosis of pancreatic cancer remains bleak even after curative-intent resections [1]. As a multi-disciplinary approach to the treatment of pancreatic cancer, there is a trend toward neoadjuvant therapy for patient with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer worldwide. Even for locally advanced pancreatic cancer, enthusiasms for con­version surgery after chemotherapy or chemoradiation ther­apy exist. This means that surgeons have to encounter more and more advanced disease at the operation room and there are technical challenges for surgeons, in particular due to
© 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_45
347
348
brosis after chemoradiation therapy. Under such circum­stances, artery-rst approaches to pancreatic resections have become widely practiced in the setting of a pancrearticoduo­denectomy (PD) or Whipple procedure in specialized cen­ters. According to the literature, the advantages of artery-rst approaches include; (1) determination of the resectability in the early phase of operation, (2) higher ratio of negative sur­gical margins, (3) oncological rationale by isolation of the tumor from the blood ow before extensive mobilization of the tumor, and (4) less amount of intraoperative blood loss [2]. However, until the report by Takaori, artery approaches to a distal pancreatectomy (DP) have been scarcely per­formed [3]. In open surgery, it had been considered very dif­cult to approach the origin of the splenic artery before the transection of the pancreas. On the other hand, in the setting of laparoscopic surgery, a surgeon can enter the retroperito­neal space behind the pancreatic body taking advantage of the caudo-cranial angle view through a laparoscope and explore the origin of the celiac artery from the aorta and the origin of the splenic artery without dividing the pancreas [4]. The same approaches can be carried out in open surgery as well by using specic techniques [5]. The two technical ele­ments of importance are dissection behind the pancreatic body after the wide division of the ligament of Treitz and the hanging maneuver of the pancreas. In this chapter, these technical aspects of artery-rst approaches to DP and a distal pancreatectomy with celiac artery resection (DP-CAR) are described.

45.2 Surgical Technique

45.2.1 Dissection Behind thePancreatic Body
K. Takaori et al.
Patient
table
Assistant
No. 3
Operator
Fig. 45.1 Positions of surgeons for artery rst approaches to a distal
pancreatectomy
Assistant
No. 1
Assistant
No. 2
Thus, the retroperitoneal space behind the pancreatic body can be well developed though the gaping hole created by the techniques described above. We call the gaping hole “Tiger Den”, or “Tora-no-Ana” in Japanese, which derives from a Chinese proverb; “one may not catch a tiger cub with­out entering tiger den”.
The surgeons stand around the operation table as shown in the Fig. 45.1. The third assistant lift the transvers colon upward (or you may use a retractor if the third assistant is not available) and the operator divide the ligament of Treitz along the lateral margin of the upper jejunum (the arrow in Fig.45.2a). The retroperitoneal space behind the fourth por­tion of the duodenum and proximal jejunum is entered and the adipose tissue behind the pancreatic head is dissected until the inferior vena cava (IVC) is exposed (Fig.45.2b). Do not try to dissect over the hilum of the left kidney at this point or you may end up with unexpected injury of the left renal artery. The mesentery of the transverse colon is divided widely along the posterior inferior border of the pancreatic body (the full-line arrow in Fig.45.3a) and the retroperito­neal tissues including the hilum of the left kidney are well visualized (Fig.45.3b). The inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) is also divided during the division of the mesentery. The dis­section over the IVC is extended to the left side and the left renal vein is exposed.
45.2.2 Partial Resection oftheMesentery
ofTransverse Colon
The gastrocolic ligament is divided and the lesser sac is entered. The left gastro-epiploic artery and short gastric arteries are divided with a vessel sealer and the stomach is mobilized upward. The transvers colon is also lifted upward and the mesentery of the transverse colon is divided along the anterior inferior margin of the pancreas (the full-line arrow in Fig. 45.4), while the middle colic artery is pre­served. In this way, a part of the mesentery of transverse colon covering the pancreatic body and tail can be resected en bloc. This part of the mesentery in patients with invasive cancer of the pancreatic body and tail is often involved by the tumor and we routinely resect this portion regardless of the presence or absence of macroscopic involvement. Although one may concern about ischemia of the colon after this pro­cedure, we have never experienced any problem as far as we can preserve the arcade of vessels along the transverse colon.
ab
ab
45 Artery-First Approaches toDistal Pancreatectomy
Transverse colon
349
Jejunum
Fig. 45.2 Tiger Den approach. The ligament of Treitz is divided along
the lateral margin of the upper jejunum (the full line arrow in a). The jejunum is retracted to the left side and the inferior vena cava (IVC) is
IMV
IVC
well exposed (b). The inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) is taped and to be transected later on
Fig. 45.3 Division of the mesentery of the transverse colon along the
posterior inferior border of the pancreas. The mesentery of the transvers colon is divided along the posterior inferior border of the pancreatic
However, when the tumor involves the vessels along the transverse colon, a resection of the affected part of the colon
body (the full line arrow in a). The division of the mesentery is widely extended while the arcade vessels along the transvers colon is preserved (b)
45.2.3 Dissection ontheLeft Side oftheLeft
Gastric Artery
may be required.
The stomach body is retracted upward and the left gastric