Article

Use of Seamguard to prevent pancreatic leak following distal pancreatectomy.

Department of Surgery, University of California-Irvine Medical Center, 333 City Blvd W, Orange, CA 92868, USA.
Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill.: 1960) (Impact Factor: 4.3). 10/2009; 144(10):894-9. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.39
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To investigate the use of Seamguard, a bioabsorbable staple line-reinforcement product, to prevent pancreatic leak after distal pancreatectomy.
A retrospective study examined 85 consecutive patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy at an academic institution from September 5, 1997, to September 30, 2007.
Pancreatic fistula and overall mortality and morbidity.
In February 2004, the use of Seamguard in distal pancreas resections was introduced at our institution. Indications for resection included trauma (11 patients), neoplasms (62 patients), and chronic pancreatitis (12 patients). Pancreatic leak was defined as drain output of 25 mL/d or more 7 days postoperatively with a drain amylase level of 1000 U/L or more. Pancreatic leak occurred in 10 of 38 patients (26%) undergoing conventional resection with suture ligation of the pancreatic duct or nonreinforced stapled resection vs 2 of 47 patients (4%) undergoing staple resection using Seamguard reinforcement. Multivariate analysis showed that use of Seamguard with the stapler independently decreased the risk for pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy (odds ratio, 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.43; P = .01).
The use of Seamguard is quickly becoming a common adjunct in distal pancreas resections. Our study shows a lower incidence of pancreatic leak after distal pancreatectomy with the use of this staple line-reinforcing product.

0 Followers
 · 
87 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Large splenic artery aneurysms are rare but comprise 60% of all visceral artery aneurysms. Most are found incidentally and rupture in the nonpregnant patient has an approximate 25 to 36% mortality rate. Historically these have been managed with an open surgical approach for resection. We present the case of a 43-year-old man with a recent episode of bacterial endocarditis with an incidental finding of a large 6-cm splenic artery aneurysm. There was noted to be splenic vein occlusion and multiple splenic infarcts versus abscesses on preoperative imaging. There were concerns that this represented a mycotic aneurysm. He underwent laparoscopic en bloc splenic artery aneurysm resection with splenectomy and distal pancreatectomy with preoperative prophylactic balloon catheter placement. His large splenic artery aneurysm was adjacent to the splenic hilum. Due to the splenic vein occlusion, there were large collateral vessels complicating the dissection. Additionally, the aneurysm had dense adhesions to the tail of the pancreas from a desmoplastic reaction. To safely remove the aneurysm, a distal pancreatectomy was included with resection of the spleen. The specimen was successfully removed intact using the laparoscopic approach. The patient had an uneventful recovery and was discharged home on postoperative day 2. Final pathology revealed no evidence of bacterial etiology. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy is an appropriate minimally invasive option for the treatment of splenic artery aneurysms. This video demonstrates the technical challenges and management options for successfully completing a distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy in the face of a splenic artery aneurysm.
    Surgical Endoscopy 02/2010; 24(9):2318-20. DOI:10.1007/s00464-010-0942-0 · 3.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To summarize published research on pancreatic surgery over the past year. Improvements in the treatment of patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis with regards to the timing of ERCP and cholecystectomy as well as management of pancreatic pseudocysts have been reported. It is often difficult to detect malignancy in neoplastic pancreatic cysts; however, a detailed cyst fluid analysis for protein and genetic markers may improve this accuracy. In order to continue to improve pancreatic cancer care in the United States, a standardized reporting system must be developed, and this was a focus of the American Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary Association Consensus Conference on Resectable and Borderline Resectable Disease. The conference examined pretreatment assessment, surgical treatment, and combined modality treatment for pancreatic cancer. A multi-institutional randomized clinical trial revealed that routine preoperative decompression of malignant biliary obstruction is associated with a higher frequency of complications. Pancreatic fistulas are the most common source of perioperative morbidity following pancreatic surgery. Fortunately, most of these can be managed nonoperatively via interventional radiology techniques. There is a broad spectrum of pancreatic diseases, which often require surgical treatment. Fortunately, the morbidity and mortality from each of them continues to decrease with more accurate diagnosis, improved management techniques, and standardized reporting systems.
    Current opinion in gastroenterology 09/2010; 26(5):499-505. DOI:10.1097/MOG.0b013e32833d1174 · 3.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Minimally invasive techniques and even robotics in pancreaticobiliary surgery are being used increasingly. Cost-effectiveness is a practical burden associated with the introduction of surgical innovation. This study compares the costs and the outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomies. We hypothesized that robotic distal pancreatectomy is cost-effective. Between August 2008 and August 2009, 77 distal pancreatectomies were performed at a single academic medical center. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on demographics, short-term outcomes, and direct cost was performed. Thirty-two open distal pancreatectomies, 28 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies, and 17 robotic distal pancreatectomies were performed. Age, American Society of Anesthesia preoperative risk score, and specimen length were similar. Indications for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies and robotic distal pancreatectomies included more cystic neoplasms (49%) and fewer malignancies (29%) versus open distal pancreatectomies (16% and 47%). Spleen preservation occurred in 65% robotic distal pancreatectomies versus 12% and 29% in open distal pancreatectomies and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (P < .05). The operative time averaged 298 minutes in robotic distal pancreatectomies versus 245 and 222 minutes in open distal pancreatectomies and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (P < .05). Blood loss and morbidity were similar with no mortality. The length of stay was 4 days in robotic distal pancreatectomies versus 8 and 6 in open distal pancreatectomies and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (P < .05). The total cost was $10,588 in robotic distal pancreatectomies versus $16,059 and $12,986 in open distal pancreatectomies and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. These data suggest direct hospital costs are comparable among all groups. They suggest a shorter length of stay in robotic versus laparoscopic or open approaches. Finally, spleen and vessel preservation rates may improve with a robotic approach at the expense of increased operative time. In summary, robotic distal pancreatectomy is safe and cost effective in selected cases.
    Surgery 10/2010; 148(4):814-23. DOI:10.1016/j.surg.2010.07.027 · 3.11 Impact Factor