4.5 Article

Radiologic and intraoperative detection of need for mesenteric vein resection in patients with adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas

期刊

HPB
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 633-642

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00343.x

关键词

pancreatic cancer; Whipple procedure; mesenteric vein resection; pancreatoduodenectomy

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute (NCI) [P30 CA91842]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The need for mesenteric venous resection (MVR) is determined by a combination of preoperative radiologic and intraoperative surgical assessments. A single-centre review was performed to determine how efficient these processes are in evaluating the need for MVR. Methods: A retrospective study was performed of 343 patients who received resection for adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas, 100 of whom underwent MVR. Three radiologic signs (abutment, fat plane obliteration, focal narrowing) were evaluated for their ability to predict the need for MVR. Pathologic assessment was performed to determine if MVR had been necessary to achieve negative-margin (R0) resection. Microscopic tumour in the vein wall, or within 1 mm of the vein wall, was considered to indicate that MVR had been necessary to achieve an R0 resection. Results: Radiologic evaluation (showing any of the three signs) had sensitivity of only 60%. Overall, 40% of the patients who required MVR showed none of the signs. Specificity was 77%. A total of 80% of patients who underwent MVR had either microscopic invasion or abutment. R0 resection at the vein margin was achieved in 98% of patients in both the MVR and non-MVR groups. Conclusions: Preoperative radiologic evaluation is not highly reliable in predicting the need for MVR. Therefore, surgical teams performing resections of cancers of the head of the pancreas must be skilled in MVR as the need for this procedure may arise unexpectedly. Surgical assessment of the need for MVR has an accuracy of about 80% and is nearly 100% accurate in determining when MVR is not required.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据