4.3 Article

Distal Pancreatectomy With En Bloc Resection of the Celiac Trunk for Extended Pancreatic Tumor Disease: An Interdisciplinary Approach

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY
卷 34, 期 5, 页码 1058-1064

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00270-010-9997-5

关键词

Pancreatic cancer; Distal pancreatectomy; Celiac trunk resection; Angiography; Embolization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Infiltration of the celiac trunk by adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic body has been considered a contraindication for surgical treatment, thus resulting in a very poor prognosis. The concept of distal pancreatectomy with resection of the celiac trunk offers a curative treatment option but implies the risk of relevant hepatic or gastric ischemia. We describe initial experiences in a small series of patients with left celiacopancreatectomy with or without angiographic preconditioning of arterial blood flow to the stomach and the liver. Materials and Methods Between January 2007 and October 2009, six patients underwent simultaneous resection of the celiac trunk for adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic body involving the celiac axis. In four of these cases, angiographic occlusion of the celiac trunk before surgery was performed to enhance collateral flow from the gastroduodenal artery. Radiologic and surgical procedures, findings, and outcome were analyzed retrospectively. Results Complete tumor removal (R0) succeeded in two patients, whereas four patients underwent R1-tumor resection. After surgery, one of the two patients without angiographic preparation experienced an ischemic stomach perforation 1 week after surgery. The other patient died from severe bleeding from an ischemic gastric ulcer. Of the four patients with celiac trunk embolization, none presented ischemic complications after surgery. Mean survival was 371 days. Conclusion In this small series, ischemic complications after celiacopancreatectomy occurred only in those patients who did not receive preoperative celiac trunk embolization.

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

4.3
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