RESUMO
Background: Postoperative hemorrhage is a potentially lethal complication of pancreatoduodenectomy. This study reports on the use of endovascular hepatic artery stents in the management of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained, consecutive dataset of 440 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy over 68 months. Data are presented on bleeding events and outcomes, and contextualized by the clinical course of the denominator population. International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery terminology was used to define postpancreatectomy hemorrhage. Results: Sixty-seven (15%) had postoperative hemorrhage. Fifty (75%) were male and this gender difference was significant (P = 0.001; 2 proportions test). Postoperative pancreatic fistulas were more frequent in the postoperative hemorrhage group (P = 0.029; 2 proportions test). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) delay between surgery and postoperative hemorrhage was 5 days (2-14 days). Twenty-six (39%) required intervention comprising reoperation alone in 12, embolization alone in 5, and endovascular hepatic artery stent deployment in 5. Four further patients underwent more than 1 intervention with 2 of these having stents. Endovascular stent placement achieved initial hemostasis in 5 of 7 (72%). Follow-up was for a median (IQR) of 199 days (145-400 days) poststent placement. In 2 patients, the stent remained patent at last follow-up. The remaining 5 stents occluded with a median (IQR) period of proven patency of 10 days (8-22 days). Conclusions: This study shows that in the specific setting of postpancreatoduodenectomy hemorrhage with either a short remnant gastroduodenal artery bleed or a direct bleed from the hepatic artery, where embolization risks occlusion with compromise of liver arterial inflow, endovascular hepatic artery stent is an important hemostatic option but is associated with a high risk of subsequent graft occlusion.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The great saphenous vein is frequently harvested for use as a conduit in lower limb bypass surgery. A number of papers advocate the use of an endoscopic technique rather than a traditional open technique to minimize the associated morbidity. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare morbidity associated with these 2 techniques. METHOD: Medline, PubMed, and secondary referencing identified 16 randomized control trials comparing these 2 methods of harvesting. Primary outcome measures were infection, hematoma, and wound dehiscence and pooled odds ratios (POR) were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Sixteen trials (3689 patients) were identified. Overall complications (POR 7.03), infection (POR 8.08), and wound dehiscence (POR 8.23) were all significantly more common in the open harvesting group compared to the endoscopic group. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic techniques have a role in vein harvesting but are operator dependent and therefore are only a preferable modality compared to open harvesting methods in experienced hands. More research is required to establish whether long-term patency rates are comparable for the 2 techniques.
