RESUMO
Purpose@#In the past, spleen preservation during distal pancreatectomy (DP) was preferred; however, more recent studies reported comparable results between splenectomy and spleen preserving. We retrospectively reviewed patients in a single center who underwent laparoscopic DP with/without splenectomy, and evaluated the chronologic changes of surgical outcomes of the two procedures. @*Materials and Methods@#Patients who underwent laparoscopic DP with or without splenectomy due to benign/borderline tumor from 2005 to 2019 were included in this study. We divided this period into Era 1 (2005–2012) and Era 2 (2013–2019), and compared the chronological evolution of surgical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy (LDPS) to those of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSpDP), including the long-term postoperative immunologic profiles. @*Results@#A total of 198 cases were included (LSpDP: 80 cases; LDPS: 118 cases). As the period changed from Era 1 to Era 2, the ratio of LSpDP decreased and the surgical outcomes of LDPS improved. In Era 1, LSpDP group showed superior results compared to LDPS group in terms of hospital days and postoperative pancreatic fistula ratio; however, in Era 2, the surgical outcomes showed no statistical differences. No significant differences were observed in all of the immunologic markers. @*Conclusion@#We carefully conclude that during laparoscopic DP, combined splenectomy can be equivalent to spleen preserving in surgical and immunological outcomes, and inevitable splenectomy can be safely conducted.
RESUMO
Purpose@#Elderly individuals have comorbidities that can adversely affect surgical outcomes. Some studies reported that elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have higher liver- and non-liver–related deaths. Therefore, palliative treatments are preferred in these patients. We compared surgical treatment outcomes between young and old age groups. @*Methods@#In total, 233 liver resections were performed in patients with HCC from March 2012 to December 2018. We retrospectively reviewed medical records. The old age group was defined as patients aged more than 70 years. We compared perioperative characteristics and surgical outcomes and analyzed the prognostic factors for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates. @*Results@#The young and old age group included 184 and 49 patients, respectively. Preoperative characteristics were similar. Major liver resection rate was similar (young age group, 26.1% vs. old age group, 20.4%), but the operation time was a little bit shorter in old age group. Major postoperative complications were 23 (12.5%) and 9 (18.4%) in the young and old age group (P = 0.351). Median non-liver–related overall survival were 80 and 76 months (P = 0.889) and liver-related OS were 76 and 76 months (P = 0.514) in the young and old age groups, respectively. Age was not an independent risk factor for DFS and OS. @*Conclusion@#Elderly patients showed similar non-liver- and liver-related OS rates as young patients after liver resection. Postoperative complications were also similar. If elderly patients are well selected, they can receive curative treatment and show good surgical outcomes.
RESUMO
Purpose@#Elderly individuals have comorbidities that can adversely affect surgical outcomes. Some studies reported that elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have higher liver- and non-liver–related deaths. Therefore, palliative treatments are preferred in these patients. We compared surgical treatment outcomes between young and old age groups. @*Methods@#In total, 233 liver resections were performed in patients with HCC from March 2012 to December 2018. We retrospectively reviewed medical records. The old age group was defined as patients aged more than 70 years. We compared perioperative characteristics and surgical outcomes and analyzed the prognostic factors for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates. @*Results@#The young and old age group included 184 and 49 patients, respectively. Preoperative characteristics were similar. Major liver resection rate was similar (young age group, 26.1% vs. old age group, 20.4%), but the operation time was a little bit shorter in old age group. Major postoperative complications were 23 (12.5%) and 9 (18.4%) in the young and old age group (P = 0.351). Median non-liver–related overall survival were 80 and 76 months (P = 0.889) and liver-related OS were 76 and 76 months (P = 0.514) in the young and old age groups, respectively. Age was not an independent risk factor for DFS and OS. @*Conclusion@#Elderly patients showed similar non-liver- and liver-related OS rates as young patients after liver resection. Postoperative complications were also similar. If elderly patients are well selected, they can receive curative treatment and show good surgical outcomes.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Pancreatic injury is rare in abdominal trauma patients (3%~12%). but it could result in significant morbidity and even mortality. Early and adequate decision making are very important in the management of patients with traumatic pancreatic injury. The purpose of this study was to assess the kinds of management and outcome through the review of our experience of pancreatic injury with multiple trauma. METHODS: We reviewed 17 patients with traumatic pancreas injury via electronic medical records from Jan. 2002 and April. 2011. We collected demographic findings; the type, location and grade of pancreas injury, the treatment modality, and patient's outcomes, such as complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), and mortality. RESULTS: Total 17 patients were reviewed, and man was 13 (88%). Traffic accident was the most common cause of injury. Pancreas neck was the most common injured site, and occured in 5 patients. Ductal injury was detected in 7 cases. Eleven patients were treated by surgical procedure, and in this group, 3 patients underwent the endoscopic retrograde pancreas drainage procedure coincidently. ERPD was tried in 8 patients, and failed in 2 patients. The major complications were post-traumatic fluid collection and abscess which accounted for 70% of all patients. The hospital stay was 35.9 days, and it was longer in patient with ductal injury (38.0+/-18.56 vs. 34.5+/-33.68 days). Only one patient was died due to septic shock associated with an uncontrolled retroperitoneal abscess. CONCLUSION: Early diagnosis is the most important factor to apply the adequate treatment option and to manage the traumatic pancreas injury. Aggressive treatment should be considered in patients with a post-operative abscess.