Comparison between a Pylorus-Preserving Pancreatoduodenectomy and a Classical Pancreatoduodenectomy Nutritional status and quality of life

BACKGROUND: This study was performed to prove whether a pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy (PPPD), now widely used in the treatment of not only positive tumors but also negative tumors, is advantageous for recovering the nutritional status and the quality of life of patients with pancreatic cancer and periampullary regions compared with a classical pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). METHODS: A retrospective study of the nutritional status and the quality of life of 200 patients who had undergone a PPPD (n=92) and a PD (n=118) from January 1993 to July 1998 was performed. The nutritional status was measured by using Broca's index, cholesterol, total protein, and albumin. The quality of life was assessed by one question on how the patients felt about their quality of life. RESULTS: The PD was preferred in advanced stages and had a higher recurrence rate. The PPPD had a shorter operative time, less transfused blood, a longer duration of nasogastric tube drainage, and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. In the PPPD, the nutritional status was improved compared with that in the PD. There were no significant differences in operative mortality or morbidity, gastrointestinal symptoms, and the quality of life between patients having a PPPD and a PD. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there are no differences in postoperative subjective symptoms and the quality of life between patients having a PPPD and those having a PD. However, preserving the pylorus allows a better recovery of nutritional status than a pylorus resection dose. The PPPD hasa survival rate similar to that of the PD. Therefore, the PPPD can be recommended for the procedure in the surgical treatment of diseases of the periampullary regions.

Right Hepatic Lobectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Safety, anatomical points, and technical points

BACKGROUND: Living related liver transplantation (LRLT) has gained acceptance as treatment modality for children with end-stage liver disease. The left lobe used in LRLT doesn't provide adequate parenchymal mass for its application to adults. We have used right lobe for LRLT in adults. Some criticism has been aroused becuase of the potential significant risk to the donors. METHODS: We analyzed the surgical risk and the stress to 20 donors in a right lobectomy for LRLT. We also analyzed anatomical points for safe harvest, and we describe techincal points based on anatomical variations. RESULTS: There were no deaths, and 6 major complications (3 bleeding, 1 perihepatic fluid collection, 1 pleural effusion, and 1 bile peritonitis after removal of the T-tube) occurred in 6 patients. Liver function was normalized within 2 weeks. There were anatomical variations in the hepatic vein, the portal vein, and the bile duct, especially the right inferior hepatic vein (55%), trifurcation of the portal vein (10%), low inserion of the right posterior bile duct into the common hepatic duct (10%), and separate insertion of the right anterior bile duct and right posterior bile duct into the hepatic duct (10%). We made a vena cava patch for the right inferior hepatic vein. In cases of the low insertion of the right posterior hepatic duct into the common hepatic duct, the cholecystectomy should be done carefully so as not to injure the right posterior hepatic duct. We ligated and divided the right posterior bile duct before dissection of the hepatic artery and the portal vein. In cases of trifurcation of the portal vein, closure of the left portal vein should be done to prevent the narrowing of the left portal vein lumen. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a right lobectomy for LRLT is safe for donors. However, anatomical variations in the bile duct, the hepatic vein, and the portal vein should be kept in mind to ensure a safe and successful operation.