ABSTRACT
Introducción. El quiste hidatídico puede localizarse en cualquier órgano del cuerpo. El quiste hidatídico en el páncreas (QHP)se presenta con una prevalencia menor a 1%, la localización más frecuente es la cabeza en 61% a 69%, en el cuerpo y cola en 31% a 39%. No es fácil diferenciar el quiste hidatídico pancreático de otros tumores quísticos del páncreas, por lo que esta patología debe tenerse en cuenta en el diagnóstico diferencial de lesiones quísticas pancreáticas. Caso Clínico. Paciente femenino de 66 años quien desde el año 2016 se encontraba en control por una tumoración quística de la cola pancreática de 1,7 cm, diagnosticada en forma incidental. La paciente cursó asintomática y se controló en forma anual. El año 2021 la lesión alcanzó un tamaño de 4,7 cm. En este contexto se decide la resección quirúrgica por vía laparoscópica. Se resecó una pieza quirúrgica de 8 cm de longitud que incluye la cola del páncreas y el quiste. La histología describe la membrana prolígera y múltiples escólex viables. Conclusión. La localización primaria en la cola del páncreas de un quiste hidatídico confunde el diagnóstico con un tumor quístico mucinoso. El tratamiento quirúrgico actual en los quistes distales debería ser la resección laparoscópica.
Introduction. The hydatid cyst can be located in any organ of the body. The hydatid cyst in the pancreas occurs with a prevalence of less than 1%, the most frequent location is the head in 61% to 69%, the body and tail in 31% to 39%. It is not easy to differentiate the pancreatic hydatid cyst from other cystic tumors of the pancreas, so this pathology must be taken into account in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions. Clinical Case. The present report discusses a 66-year-old female patient who had been in control since 2016 for a 1.7 cm cystic tumor of the pancreatic tail. The patient was asymptomatic and was controlled annually. In 2021, the lesion reached a size of 4.7 cm. In this context, laparoscopic surgical resection was decided. An 8 cm long surgical specimen was resected, including the tail of the pancreas and the cyst. Histology describes prolific membrane and multiple viable scolexes. Conclusion. The primary location in the tail of the pancreas of a hydatid cyst confuses the diagnosis with a mucinous cystic tumor. The current surgical treatment for distal cysts should be laparoscopic resection.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been widely performed for solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) involving the body or tail of the pancreas. However, it has not been established whether spleen preservation in LDP is oncologically safe for the treatment of SPN with malignant potential. In this study, we compared the short- and long-term outcomes between patients with SPN who underwent laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (LDPS). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 46 patients with SPN who underwent LDP between January 2005 and November 2016. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to spleen preservation: the LSPDP group (n=32) and the LDPS group (n=14). Clinicopathologic characteristics and perioperative outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in pathologic variables, including tumor size, tumor location, node status, angiolymphatic invasion, or perineural invasion between groups. Median operating time was significantly longer in the LSPDP group vs the LDPS group (243 vs 172 minutes; p=0.006). Estimated intraoperative blood loss was also significantly greater in the LSPDP group (310 vs 167 ml; p=0.063). There were no significant differences in incidence of postoperative complications (≥ Clavien-Dindo class IIIa) or pancreatic fistula between groups. After a median follow-up of 35 months (range, 3S153 months), there was no recurrence or disease-specific mortality in either group. CONCLUSION: The results show that LSPDP is an oncologically safe procedure for SPN involving the body or tail of the pancreas.
Subject(s)
Humans , Follow-Up Studies , Incidence , Medical Records , Mortality , Pancreas , Pancreatectomy , Pancreatic Fistula , Postoperative Complications , Recurrence , Retrospective Studies , Spleen , Splenectomy , TailABSTRACT
Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in treatment of insulinoma.Methods Clinical data of 8 cases of insulinoma treated by laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy from Apr.2015 to Apr.2017 were retrospectively reviewed.Results Locations of the insulinoma in distal pancreas were all identified preoperatively by enhanced CT,MRI or somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS).Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was applied to 8 cases,including combined splenectomy to 1 case.The operation time,bleeding volume,and postoperative hospital stay was (159±44) min,(125±119) ml and (5.5±1.4) days,respectively.Grade B fistula happened to one patient after surgery.The level of postoperative blood glucoses was normal in all cases.Conclusion Laparoscopic distal panreatectomy is safe,effective,and less invasive in treating insulinoma,with quick recovery and high efficacy in spleen preservation.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#To compare and evaluate the curative effect of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy(LDP) and traditional open distal pancreatectomy(ODP) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.@*Methods@#The clinical data of 15 patients treated by LDP and 87 contemporaneous cases treated by ODP from January 2010 to November 2015 was collected, and the curative effect and prognosis of these patients were retrospectively analyzed.@*Results@#The operation time of LDP group was (286.5±48.1) min, significantly longer than that of OPD group(226.6±56.8) min (P<0.05). The operative hemorrhage, postoperative exhaust time, recovery eating time, the whole and postoperative hospitalization time of LDP group were (188.7±108.9) ml, (2.2±1.3) d, (2.9±1.1) d, (13.2±10.4) d and (9.3±8.1) d, respectively, dramatically shorter than those of ODP group (625.2±982.1) ml, (4.3±1.7) d, (5.2±1.8) d, (20.7±8.7) d and (14.9±7.8) d, respectively (all of P<0.05). There were no intraoperative blood transfusion case in LDP group, however, 13 patients in ODP group received intraoperative blood transfusion, without significant difference (P=0.207). Alternatively, 6 cases occurred pancreatic fistula in LDP group, among them, 5 cases were grade A and 1 case was grade B; In ODP group, 17 cases occurred pancreatic fistula, among them 13 cases were grade A, 1 case was grade B and 3 cases were grade C, without significant differences (P=0.130). There were 2 cases of delayed gastric empty, 1 case of pulmonary infection in LDP group. In ODP group, there were 5 cases of postoperative delayed gastric empty, 3 cases of pulmonary infection and 6 cases of intra-abdominal infection, without significant differences (P>0.05). In both LDP group and ODP group, none occurred percutaneous drainage, re-admissions, second operation or perioperative death.@*Conclusions@#Compared to ODP, LDP is much safer and more steady in perioperative periodand operation. Patients of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma received LDP can acquire more benefit and recovery sooner, and LDP is a safe and effective operative method.
ABSTRACT
Objective To assess the feasibility, safety and efficacy of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Methods The clinical data of 68 patients with pancreatic body or tail diseases, who received distal pancreatectomy from May 2011 to February 2012, were retrospectively analyzed. LDP was performed in 16 cases and ODP in 52 cases. The baseline clinical data and the intraoperative and postoperative findings were compared between the two groups. Results There was no death in the two groups. The sex ratio, age, body mass index,tumor diameter and total hospital costs were not significantly different between the two groups. The incision length of LDP group was significantly shorter than that of ODP group (\[3.50±1.34\] cm vs \[17.94±2.12\] cm, P<0.001). The operative duration of LDP group was significantly longer than that of ODP group (\[145.63±56.80\] min vs \[87.21±32.06\] min,P<0.001). Postoperative hospital stay of LDP and ODP groups were (5.06±1.24) d and (8.06±2.53) d (P<0.001), time in bed after surgery were (1.31±0.68) d and (2.94±0.80) d (P<0.001), and postoperative fasting time were (1.31±0.57) d and (2.86±1.34) d (P<0.001), respectively. Estimated blood loss of LDP and ODP groups were (318.75±227.21) ml and (306.35±378.36) ml (P=0.898), respectively. Four patients had pancreatic leakages and 1 had peritoneal effusion in LDP group. Twelve patients had pancreatic leakages and 3 had peritoneal effusions in ODP group, with one having both pancreatic leakage and peritoneal effusion. There were no significant differences in the incidence of pancreatic leakage and peritoneal effusion between the two groups. The postoperative pain score was mainly 1-2 in LDP group and 2-3 in ODP group, with significant differences found between the two groups (P<0.001). Conclusion LDP is feasible and safe in treating benign or borderline disease of pancreatic body and tail. Compared to ODP,LDP has the advantage of less trauma and pain, quicker recovery without increasing the total costs.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To assess the technical feasibility of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) focusing on the development of postoperative complications including pancreatic fistula (POPF). METHODS: From March 2001 to April 2010, 57 patients underwent a distal pancreatectomy. The patients were divided into two groups, LDP group (L group, n=15) and open distal pancreatectomy group (O group, n=42). The clinicopathological characteristics, surgical variables and postoperative outcomes of these 2 groups were compared retrospectively. RESULTS: Patients with a malignancy constituted 7% of the L group and 31% of the O group (p=0.084). The tumor size was significantly larger in the O group (2.6 vs. 5.3 cm). The body mass index (BMI) was significantly higher in the L group (24.9 vs. 22.9 kg/m2). One case of a pancreas pseudocyst in the L group was converted to open surgery due to intraoperative bleeding. The L group showed significantly less intraoperative bleeding, earlier start of solid meals and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications and POPF between the 2 groups. POPF of ISGPF grade B developed in 0 and 2 patients in the L group and O group, respectively. One intestinal obstruction and 1 fluid collection that required intervention was encountered in the O group. One patient with adenocarcinoma who underwent LDP was alive 25 months after surgery without recurrence. CONCLUSION: LDP provides the advantages of minimal access surgery with a comparable rate of POPF to ODP. LDP is considered suitable for benign and borderline-malignant pancreatic lesions.