Prognostic relevance of the posterior resection margin for predicting disease free survival in ampullary adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy is the only curative treatment option for patients with resectable ampullary adenocarcinoma (AA). Excellent disease free survival (DFS) can be achieved in patients with clear resection margins but it is poorly understood which patients are at increased risk of recurrence and hence would benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. There is evolving evidence that the anatomical location of incomplete resection margins influences DFS in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. It is unknown if this also pertains to AA and therefore this study aimed to assess individual resection margin status and other predictors of DFS in AA. MATERIAL & METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for AA at our institution from 1996 to 2017 were analysed. Pancreas neck, posterior and superior mesenteric vein margins were assessed individually. Cox proportional hazards modelling was used to identify predictors of 5-year DFS. Factors with p < 0.1 on univariate analysis were included for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of 104 patients revealed median OS and DFS of 56 and 34 months, respectively. Predictors associated with worse DFS on multivariate analysis were T3-stage (HR 3.6, p = 0.048), N1 (HR 2.9, p = 0.01) and N2 -stage (HR 3.6, p = 0.006), R1 status at the posterior margin (HR 3.0, p = 0.009) and a visible mass on CT (HR 2.0, p = 0.039). CONCLUSION: Routine histopathological assessment of individual resection margins may aid in predicting recurrence of AA. Future studies to assess if routine mesopancreas excision during pancreaticoduodenectomy can reduce the incidence of R1 status at the posterior margin are warranted.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic transcystic versus transcholedochal common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis.

Background: It is not clear whether laparoscopic transcystic exploration (LTCE) laparoscopic choledochotomy (LCD) is superior in the management of choledocholithiasis. In this meta-analysis, the success of LTCE versus LCD was evaluated. Methods: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Trip, PubMed, Ovid and Embase databases were searched systematically for relevant literature up to May 2017. Studies that compared the success rate of LTCE and LCD in patients with choledocholithiasis were included. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Multiple independent reviewers contributed on a cloud-based platform. Random-effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences (MDs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals. An a priori hypothesis was generated based on clinical experience that LTCE is as successful as LCD. Results: Of 3533 screened articles, 25 studies comprising 4224 patients were included. LTCE achieved a lower duct clearance rate than LCD (OR 0.38, 95 per cent c.i. 0·24 to 0·59). It was associated with a shorter duration of surgery (MD -0·86, 95 per cent c.i. -0·97 to -0·77), lower bile leak (OR 0·46, 0·23 to 0·93) and shorter hospital stay (MD -0·78, -1·14 to -0·42) than LCD. There was no statistically significant difference in conversion, stricture formation or reintervention rate. Conclusion: LCD has a higher rate of successful duct clearance, but is associated with a longer duration of surgery and hospital stay, and a higher bile leak rate.