4.3 Article

Laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasound in the evaluation of pancreatic and periampullary tumours

期刊

DIGESTIVE SURGERY
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 305-313

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000080885

关键词

pancreas; cancer; laparoscopy; computed tomography; staging; resection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims: The pre-operative determination of resectability of pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasia assists the selection of patients for surgical or nonsurgical treatment. This study investigated whether the addition of laparoscopy with laparoscopic ultrasound to dual-phase helical CT could improve the accuracy of assessment of resectability. Patients and Methods: Prospective study of 305 patients referred to a single unit for consideration of pancreatic resection who underwent dual-phase helical CT scanning B laparoscopy with laparoscopic ultrasound. Data were collected on patient demographics, CT findings, assessment of operability, laparoscopic assessment ( LA), surgical procedures and histology. Results: LA was undertaken in 239/305 patients, 190 of whom were considered CT resectable, and 49 CT unresectable. Of the 190 CT resectable patients, LA correctly identified unresectability in 28 (15%: metastases in 15; vascular encasement in 6; anaesthesia for laparoscopy found 7 unfit for major resection) and incorrectly in 2 ( vascular encasement), but did not identify unresectability in 33; LA correctly confirmed resectability in the remainder ( prediction improved, chi(2) = 9.73, p < 0.01). Of the 49 CT unresectable patients, LA correctly identified resectability in 4, and incorrectly in 12, and correctly identified unresectability in the remaining 33. Sixty-six of the 305 patients did not undergo LA, of whom 23 underwent resection. Conclusion: When added to dual-phase helical CT, laparoscopy with laparoscopic ultrasound provides valuable information that significantly improves the selection of patients for surgical or nonsurgical treatment. Copyright (C) 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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