Selection of parenchymal preserving or total pancreatectomy with/without islet cell autotransplantation surgery for patients with chronic pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: The selection of surgery between parenchymal preserving (PPS) and total pancreatectomy (TP) with/without islet cell autotransplantation (IAT) for chronic pancreatitis (CP) patients varies based on multiple factors with a scarcity in literature addressing both at the same time. The aim of this manuscript is to present an algorithm for the surgery selection based on dominant area of disease, ductal dilatation, and glycemic control and compare outcomes. METHODS: From 2017 to 2021, CP patients offered surgery at a single institution were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: 51 patients underwent surgery (20 [39.2%] TPIAT, 4 [7.8%] TP, and 27 [52.9%] PPS - 9 Whipple procedures, 15 distal pancreatectomies, and 3 duct drainage procedures). No significant difference was observed in baseline characteristics or perioperative outcomes except median length of stay (8 days [IQR 6-10] vs. 13 days [IQR 9-15.5], p < 0.001), attributed to insulin requirement and education for TPIAT group. No differences in postoperative complications, such as clinically significant leak and intrabdominal fluid collection (3 [11.1%] vs 2 [10%], p = 1.0), hemorrhage (0 vs. 2 [10.0%], p = 0.2), delayed feeding (1 [3.7%] vs. 5 [25.0%], p = 0.07), or wound infection (4 [14.8%] vs. 0, p = 0.1) between PPS and TPIAT groups, respectively, were observed nor requirement of long-acting insulin at discharge (2 [15.4%] vs. 7 [43.8%], p = 0.1) for pre-operatively non-diabetic patients. No significant difference in weaning off narcotics and no mortality observed. CONCLUSION: The most appropriate selection of surgery based on the algorithm yields good and comparable outcomes.

Portal flow dynamics after total pancreatectomy and autologous islet cell transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a serious complication of total pancreatectomy and autologous islet cell transplant (TPAIT); therefore, portal flow dynamics are monitored by Doppler ultrasound postoperatively. The practical value of scheduled Doppler ultrasound examinations and the relationship between portal vein velocity, liver function, and complications have not been clearly studied. METHODS: A retrospective review of 16 TPAIT was performed. Correlation analysis of portal vein velocity with indices of liver function, portal pressure, and volume of islet cells infused was conducted. RESULTS: There was no correlation between portal vein velocity and postoperative liver function tests (LFTs). Larger volume of islet cells infused and higher intraoperative portal pressure correlated with decreased postoperative portal flow. There was no significant difference in portal pressure, portal vein velocity, or LFTs between those with normal and abnormal pre-infusion liver histopathology. While no PVT occurred, there were two cases of postoperative bleeding related to anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: Segmental portal vein velocities are low in the setting of high tissue volume and portal pressure, but are not associated with variation in LFTs. Therefore, patient management in response to changes in velocities without clinical symptoms may be unnecessary.

Spontaneous portoazygos shunt in a patient with portal hypertension.

We present a case of spontaneous portoazygos shunt in a patient with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension. The shunt was incidentally detected by abdominal magnetic resonance imaging for routine evaluation of liver cirrhosis. Multiplanar reconstruction images demonstrated the portal vein communicating with the azygos vein that was dilated and tortuous along its course to the mediastinum. Although there has been a case of congenital portoazygos shunt reported in a neonate with multiple congenital anomalies, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of spontaneous portoazygos shunt developed in an adult with portal hypertension.