Article

A comparison of pancreaticoduodenectomy and duodenum‐preserving head resection for the treatment of chronic pancreatitis

Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
HPB (Impact Factor: 2.05). 10/2009; 11(8):677 - 683. DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2009.00118.x

ABSTRACT Background:  For chronic pancreatitis, European prospective trials have concluded that duodenum-preserving head resections (DPHR) are associated with less morbidity and similar pain relief and quality of life (QoL) outcomes compared with pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). However, DPHR procedures are seldom performed in North America.Methods:  Patients undergoing PD or DPHR for unremitting pain secondary to chronic pancreatitis were retrospectively identified. Quality of life was assessed cross-sectionally using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and pancreatic cancer-specific supplemental module (QLQ-PAN26).Results:  Eighty-one patients underwent either a Whipple PD (n= 59) or a DPHR (Bern, Beger or Frey procedure, n= 22) for the treatment of pain caused by chronic pancreatitis over a 5-year period. The characteristics of patients undergoing DPHR and PD procedures were similar. Duration of procedure (360 min vs. 245 min), duration of hospital stay (12.0 days vs. 9.5 days) and estimated blood loss (535 ml vs. 214 ml) were all significantly less for DPHR patients (P < 0.05). Thirty-day morbidity and mortality, postoperative pain relief and QoL scores did not differ significantly between groups.Conclusions:  Duodenum-preserving head resection is equally as effective as PD in relieving pain and improving QoL in chronic pancreatitis patients, and involves a shorter hospital stay and less blood loss.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Andrew Lowy, Jun 28, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
64 Views
  • Source
    Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie 11/2012; 50(11):1176-1224. DOI:10.1055/s-0032-1325479 · 1.67 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a progressive inflammatory disease of the pancreas characterized by destruction of the pancreatic parenchyma with subsequent fibrosis that leads to pancreatic exocrine and endocrine insufficiency. Abdominal pain and local complications (bile duct or duodenal stenosis and pancreatic tumor) secondary to CP are indications for therapy. At the beginning, medical therapy is used. More invasive treatment is recommended for patients with pancreatic duct stones (PDS) and pancreatic obstruction in whom standard medical therapy is not sufficient. Recently, Clarke et al assessed the long-term effectiveness of endoscopic therapy (ET) in CP patients. The authors compared ET with medical treatment. They reported that ET was clinically successful in 50% of patients with symptomatic CP. In this commentary, current CP treatment, including indications for ET and surgery in CP patients, is discussed. Recommendations for endoscopic treatment of CP according to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Guidelines are reviewed. Different surgical methods used in the treatment of CP patients are also discussed. ET is the most useful in patients with large PDS, pancreatic duct obstruction and dilation. It should be the first-line option because it is less invasive than surgery. Surgery should be the first-line option in patients in whom ET has failed or in those with a pancreatic mass with suspicion of malignancy. ET is a very effective and less invasive procedure, but it cannot be recommended as the treatment of choice in all CP patients.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 01/2013; 19(1):12-6. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v19.i1.12 · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Although adjuvant gemcitabine (GEM) chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer is standard, the quality of life (QOL) in those patients is still impaired by the standard regimen of GEM. Therefore, we studied whether mild dose-intensity adjuvant chemotherapy with bi-weekly GEM administration could provide a survival benefit with acceptable QOL to the patients with pancreatic cancer. Methods After a phase I trial, an adjuvant bi-weekly 1,000 mg/m2 of GEM chemotherapy was performed in 58 patients with pancreatic cancer for at least 12 courses (Group A). In contrast, 36 patients who declined the adjuvant bi-weekly GEM chemotherapy underwent traditional adjuvant 5FU-based chemotherapy (Group B). Careful periodical follow-ups for side effects of GEM and disease recurrence, and assessment of patients’ QOL using the EORTC QOL questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and pancreatic cancer-specific supplemental module (QLQ-PAN26) were performed. Retrospectively, the degree of side effects, patients’ QOL, compliance rate, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) in Group A were compared with those in Group B. Results No severe side effects (higher than Grade 2 according to the common toxicity criteria of ECOG) were observed, except for patients in Group B, who were switched to the standard GEM chemotherapy. Patients’ QOL was better in Group A than B (fatigue: 48.9 ± 32.1 versus 68.1 ± 36.3, nausea and vomiting: 26.8 ± 20.4 versus 53.7 ± 32.6, diarrhea: 21.0 ± 22.6 versus 53.9 ± 38.5, difficulty gaining weight: 49.5 ± 34.4 versus 67.7 ± 40.5, P < 0.05). Compliance rates in Groups A and B were 93% and 47%. There was a significant difference in the median DFS between both groups (Group A : B =12.5 : 6.6 months, P < 0.001). The median OS of Group A was prolonged markedly compared with Group B (20.2 versus 11.9 months, P < 0.005). For OS between both groups, univariate analysis revealed no statistical difference in 69-year-old or under females, and T1–2 factors, moreover, multivariate analysis indicated three factors, such as bi-weekly adjuvant GEM chemotherapy, T2 or less, and R0. Conclusions Adjuvant chemotherapy with bi-weekly GEM offered not only the advantage of survival benefits but the excellent compliance with acceptable QOL for postoperative pancreatic cancer patients.
    World Journal of Surgical Oncology 01/2013; 11(1):3. DOI:10.1186/1477-7819-11-3 · 1.20 Impact Factor