Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Markus Wolfgang Büchler
Based on 218 articles published since 2009
(Why 218 articles?)
||||

Between 2009 and 2019, M. W. Büchler wrote the following 218 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9
1 Guideline [Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: ISGPS consensus statement]. 2014

Strobel, O / Büchler, M W / Anonymous4330811. ·Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland, Oliver.Strobel@med.uni-heidelberg.de. ·Chirurg · Pubmed #25385138.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

2 Guideline Definition of a standard lymphadenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). 2014

Tol, Johanna A M G / Gouma, Dirk J / Bassi, Claudio / Dervenis, Christos / Montorsi, Marco / Adham, Mustapha / Andrén-Sandberg, Ake / Asbun, Horacio J / Bockhorn, Maximilian / Büchler, Markus W / Conlon, Kevin C / Fernández-Cruz, Laureano / Fingerhut, Abe / Friess, Helmut / Hartwig, Werner / Izbicki, Jakob R / Lillemoe, Keith D / Milicevic, Miroslav N / Neoptolemos, John P / Shrikhande, Shailesh V / Vollmer, Charles M / Yeo, Charles J / Charnley, Richard M / Anonymous3050801. ·Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: D.J.Gouma@amc.nl. · Department of Surgery and Oncology, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of First Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of General Surgery, Instituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. · Department of HPB Surgery, Hopital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France. · Department of Surgery, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden. · Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. · Department of General-, Visceral- and Thoracic-Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. · Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. · Professorial Surgical Unit, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. · Department of Surgery, Clinic Hospital of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · First Department of Digestive Surgery, Hippokrateon Hospital, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; Section for Surgical Research, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. · Department of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and the Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. · First Surgical Clinic, Clinical Center of Serbia, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. · Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Liverpool Cancer Research-UK Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Gastrointestinal and HPB Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India. · Department of Surgery, Penn Medicine, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of Surgery, Jefferson Pancreas, Biliary and Related Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of HPB & Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. ·Surgery · Pubmed #25061003.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The lymph node (Ln) status of patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an important predictor of survival. The survival benefit of extended lymphadenectomy during pancreatectomy is, however, disputed, and there is no true definition of the optimal extent of the lymphadenectomy. The aim of this study was to formulate a definition for standard lymphadenectomy during pancreatectomy. METHODS: During a consensus meeting of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery, pancreatic surgeons formulated a consensus statement based on available literature and their experience. RESULTS: The nomenclature of the Japanese Pancreas Society was accepted by all participants. Extended lymphadenectomy during pancreatoduodenectomy with resection of Ln's along the left side of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and around the celiac trunk, splenic artery, or left gastric artery showed no survival benefit compared with a standard lymphadenectomy. No level I evidence was available on prognostic impact of positive para-aortic Ln's. Consensus was reached on selectively removing suspected Ln's outside the resection area for frozen section. No consensus was reached on continuing or terminating resection in cases where these nodes were positive. CONCLUSION: Extended lymphadenectomy cannot be recommended. Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy should strive to resect Ln stations no. 5, 6, 8a, 12b1, 12b2, 12c, 13a, 13b, 14a, 14b, 17a, and 17b. For cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas, removal of stations 10, 11, and 18 is standard. Furthermore, lymphadenectomy is important for adequate nodal staging. Both pancreatic resection in relatively fit patients or nonresectional palliative treatment were accepted as acceptable treatment in cases of positive Ln's outside the resection plane. This consensus statement could serve as a guide for surgeons and researchers in future directives and new clinical studies.

3 Guideline Extended pancreatectomy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: definition and consensus of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). 2014

Hartwig, Werner / Vollmer, Charles M / Fingerhut, Abe / Yeo, Charles J / Neoptolemos, John P / Adham, Mustapha / Andrén-Sandberg, Ake / Asbun, Horacio J / Bassi, Claudio / Bockhorn, Max / Charnley, Richard / Conlon, Kevin C / Dervenis, Christos / Fernandez-Cruz, Laureano / Friess, Helmut / Gouma, Dirk J / Imrie, Clem W / Lillemoe, Keith D / Milićević, Miroslav N / Montorsi, Marco / Shrikhande, Shailesh V / Vashist, Yogesh K / Izbicki, Jakob R / Büchler, Markus W / Anonymous1520795. ·Department of Surgery, Klinikum Großhadern, University of Munich, Munich, Germany. · Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Penn Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of Digestive Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal, Poissy, France. · Department of Surgery, Jefferson Pancreas, Biliary and Related Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Liverpool Cancer Research-UK Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Department of HPB Surgery, Hopital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France. · Department of Surgery, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden. · Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. · Department of Surgery and Oncology, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of General-, Visceral- and Thoracic-Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. · Department of HPB & Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. · Professorial Surgical Unit, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. · Department of First Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Surgery, Clinic Hospital of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Academic Unit of Surgery, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. · Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. · First Surgical Clinic, Clinical Center of Serbia, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. · Department of General Surgery, Instituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. · Department of Gastrointestinal and HPB Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India. · Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: markus.buechler@med.uni-heidelberg.de. ·Surgery · Pubmed #24856668.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Complete macroscopic tumor resection is one of the most relevant predictors of long-term survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Because locally advanced pancreatic tumors can involve adjacent organs, "extended" pancreatectomy that includes the resection of additional organs may be needed to achieve this goal. Our aim was to develop a common consistent terminology to be used in centers reporting results of pancreatic resections for cancer. METHODS: An international panel of pancreatic surgeons working in well-known, high-volume centers reviewed the literature on extended pancreatectomies and worked together to establish a consensus on the definition and the role of extended pancreatectomy in pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: Macroscopic (R1) and microscopic (R0) complete tumor resection can be achieved in patients with locally advanced disease by extended pancreatectomy. Operative time, blood loss, need for blood transfusions, duration of stay in the intensive care unit, and hospital morbidity, and possibly also perioperative mortality are increased with extended resections. Long-term survival is similar compared with standard resections but appears to be better compared with bypass surgery or nonsurgical palliative chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. It was not possible to identify any clear prognostic criteria based on the specific additional organ resected. CONCLUSION: Despite increased perioperative morbidity, extended pancreatectomy is warranted in locally advanced disease to achieve long-term survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma if macroscopic clearance can be achieved. Definitions of extended pancreatectomies for locally advanced disease (and not distant metastatic disease) are established that are crucial for comparison of results of future trials across different practices and countries, in particular for those using neoadjuvant therapy.

4 Guideline Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). 2014

Bockhorn, Maximilian / Uzunoglu, Faik G / Adham, Mustapha / Imrie, Clem / Milicevic, Miroslav / Sandberg, Aken A / Asbun, Horacio J / Bassi, Claudio / Büchler, Markus / Charnley, Richard M / Conlon, Kevin / Cruz, Laureano Fernandez / Dervenis, Christos / Fingerhutt, Abe / Friess, Helmut / Gouma, Dirk J / Hartwig, Werner / Lillemoe, Keith D / Montorsi, Marco / Neoptolemos, John P / Shrikhande, Shailesh V / Takaori, Kyoichi / Traverso, William / Vashist, Yogesh K / Vollmer, Charles / Yeo, Charles J / Izbicki, Jakob R / Anonymous1510795. ·Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. · Department of HPB Surgery, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France. · Academic Unit of Surgery, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. · First Surgical Clinic, Clinical Center of Serbia, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. · Department of Surgery, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden. · Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. · Department of Surgery and Oncology, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of HPB & Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. · Professorial Surgical Unit, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. · Department of Surgery, Clinic Hospital of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · First Department of Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Digestive Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal, Poissy, France. · Department of Surgery, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. · Department of General Surgery, Instituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. · Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Liverpool Cancer Research-UK Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Gastrointestinal and HPB Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India. · Department of Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan. · St. Luke's Clinic - Center For Pancreatic and Liver Diseases, Boise, ID. · Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Penn Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of Surgery, Jefferson Pancreas, Biliary and Related Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: izbicki@uke.de. ·Surgery · Pubmed #24856119.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: This position statement was developed to expedite a consensus on definition and treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BRPC) that would have worldwide acceptability. METHODS: An international panel of pancreatic surgeons from well-established, high-volume centers collaborated on a literature review and development of consensus on issues related to borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) supports the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for the definition of BRPC. Current evidence supports operative exploration and resection in the case of involvement of the mesentericoportal venous axis; in addition, a new classification of extrahepatic mesentericoportal venous resections is proposed by the ISGPS. Suspicion of arterial involvement should lead to exploration to confirm the imaging-based findings. Formal arterial resections are not recommended; however, in exceptional circumstances, individual therapeutic approaches may be evaluated under experimental protocols. The ISGPS endorses the recommendations for specimen examination and the definition of an R1 resection (tumor within 1 mm from the margin) used by the British Royal College of Pathologists. Standard preoperative diagnostics for BRPC may include: (1) serum levels of CA19-9, because CA19-9 levels predict survival in large retrospective series; and also (2) the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio because of the prognostic relevance of the systemic inflammatory response. Various regimens of neoadjuvant therapy are recommended only in the setting of prospective trials at high-volume centers. CONCLUSION: Current evidence justifies portomesenteric venous resection in patients with BRPC. Basic definitions were identified, that are currently lacking but that are needed to obtain further evidence and improvement for this important patient subgroup. A consensus for each topic is given.

5 Editorial [Cystic tumors of the pancreas]. 2017

Hackert, T / Büchler, M W. ·Klinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. · Klinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. markus_buechler@med.uni-heidelberg.de. ·Chirurg · Pubmed #29124330.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

6 Editorial Prognosis of resected pancreatic cancer: is the refined resection margin status dispensable? 2012

Hartwig, Werner / Werner, Jens / Büchler, Markus W. · ·Langenbecks Arch Surg · Pubmed #22820875.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

7 Editorial Vascular resections in pancreatic cancer. 2010

Hackert, Thilo / Büchler, Markus W. ·Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. ·Updates Surg · Pubmed #20845005.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

8 Editorial R0 in pancreatic cancer surgery: surgery, pathology, biology, or definition matters? 2010

Büchler, Markus W / Werner, Jens / Weitz, Jürgen. · ·Ann Surg · Pubmed #20485128.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

9 Review Chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. 2019

Springfeld, Christoph / Jäger, Dirk / Büchler, Markus W / Strobel, Oliver / Hackert, Thilo / Palmer, Daniel H / Neoptolemos, John P. ·Heidelberg University Hospital, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Department of Medical Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: christoph.springfeld@med.uni-heidelberg.de. · Heidelberg University Hospital, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Department of Medical Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany. · Heidelberg University Hospital, Department of Surgery, Heidelberg, Germany. · University of Liverpool, Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Liverpool, UK. ·Presse Med · Pubmed #30879894.

ABSTRACT: Chemotherapy is an important part of multimodality pancreatic cancer treatment. After curative resection, adjuvant chemotherapy can significantly improve disease free survival and overall survival. The current standard of care is six months adjuvant chemotherapy with modified folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) in patients fit enough for this protocol, otherwise six months of gemcitabine and capecitabine based on the European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-4 study. In patients with metastatic disease, combination chemotherapy according to the FOLFIRINOX protocol or with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel is an important improvement to gemcitabine monotherapy that was the standard for many years. Patients not fit for combination chemotherapy however may still benefit from gemcitabine. Patients with good performance status may benefit from second-line chemotherapy. Chemoradiation has long been used in locally advanced pancreatic cancer but is now tempered following the LAP07 study. This trial showed no difference in overall survival in those patients with stable disease after four months of gemcitabine (with or without erlotinib) randomized to either continuation of gemcitabine therapy or chemoradiation (54Gy with capecitabine). As an alternative to radiation, other forms local therapies including radiofrequency ablation, irreversible electroporation, high-intensity focused ultrasound, microwave ablation and local anti-KRAS therapy (using siG12D-LODER) are currently under investigation. Given the systemic nature of pancreas cancer from an early stage, the success of any local approach other than complete surgical resection (with adjuvant systemic therapy) is likely to be very limited. In patients with locally advanced, irresectable cancer, chemotherapy may offer the chance for secondary resection with a survival similar to patients with primary resectable disease. Downstaging regimens need to be evaluated in prospective randomized trials in order to make firm recommendations. Selection of patient groups for specific therapy including cytotoxics is becoming a reality using assays based on drug cellular transport and metabolism, and molecular signatures. Going forward, high throughput screening of different chemotherapy agents using molecular signatures based on patients' derived organoids holds considerable promise.

10 Review Optimizing the outcomes of pancreatic cancer surgery. 2019

Strobel, Oliver / Neoptolemos, John / Jäger, Dirk / Büchler, Markus W. ·Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Medical Oncology and Internal Medicine VI, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. markus.buechler@med.uni-heidelberg.de. ·Nat Rev Clin Oncol · Pubmed #30341417.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic cancer is likely to become the second most frequent cause of cancer-associated mortality within the next decade. Surgical resection with adjuvant systemic chemotherapy currently provides the only chance of long-term survival. However, only 10-20% of patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed with localized, surgically resectable disease. The majority of patients present with metastatic disease and are not candidates for surgery, while surgery remains underused even in those with resectable disease owing to historical concerns regarding safety and efficacy. However, advances made over the past decade in the safety and efficacy of surgery have resulted in perioperative mortality of around 3% and 5-year survival approaching 30% after resection and adjuvant chemotherapy. Furthermore, owing to advances in both surgical techniques and systemic chemotherapy, the indications for resection have been extended to include locally advanced tumours. Many aspects of pancreatic cancer surgery, such as the management of postoperative morbidities, sequencing of resection and systemic therapy, and use of neoadjuvant therapy followed by resection for tumours previously considered unresectable, are rapidly evolving. In this Review, we summarize the current status of and new developments in pancreatic cancer surgery, while highlighting the most important research questions for attempts to further optimize outcomes.

11 Review [Branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm - surgical approach]. 2017

Kaiser, J / Büchler, M W / Hackert, T. ·Klinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. · Klinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. thilo.hackert@med.uni-heidelberg.de. ·Chirurg · Pubmed #28801818.

ABSTRACT: Due to increasing precision of modern imaging modalities, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) of the pancreas are found with increasing prevalence. Despite their malignant potential IPMN are often kept under surveillance and are not immediately resected. The 2012 International Consensus Guidelines of Fukuoka have been widely accepted for the management of IPMN. They recommend surgical resection for branch duct IPMN with "high risk stigmata", while branch duct IPMN with "worrisome features" should undergo observation without immediate resection. Consequently, patients with asymptomatic branch duct IPMN and a presumed low malignant potential mostly undergo primary surveillance to avoid surgery-related morbidity and mortality following pancreatic resection; however, with respect to the cumulative risk of malignant transformation over time, surgical resection might also be indicated for patients with branch duct IPMN with "worrisome features". This article discusses the indications for surgery and different options of resection of branch duct IPMN.

12 Review Can Neoadjuvant Therapy in Pancreatic Cancer Increase the Pool of Patients Eligible for Pancreaticoduodenectomy? 2017

Hackert, Thilo / Ulrich, Alexis / Büchler, Markus W. ·Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, Heidelberg 69120, Germany. Electronic address: Thilo_Hackert@med.uni-heidelberg.de. · Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, Heidelberg 69120, Germany. ·Adv Surg · Pubmed #28797331.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

13 Review Extended Pancreatectomy: Does It Have a Role in the Contemporary Management of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma? 2017

Kaiser, Joerg / Hackert, Thilo / Büchler, Markus W. ·Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg, Germany. ·Dig Surg · Pubmed #28700995.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is a low-incident but highly mortal disease. Surgery is still the preferred treatment option for resectable pancreatic cancer as it offers the only realistic chance for cure. As many patients present with locally advanced disease, which is generally considered as not amenable to surgical treatment, it is important to know the limits of surgical therapy in this disease. METHODS: In this review, the indication and outcomes of extended pancreatectomies as well as the alternative treatment options for locally advanced pancreatic cancer are described. Furthermore, controversies as well as ongoing and future directions for the treatment options of locally advanced pancreatic cancer are discussed. RESULTS: Extended pancreatectomy can be performed with higher morbidity and mortality rates in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer compared to patients undergoing formal pancreatic resections. These procedures offer significant advantages with respect to both perioperative results and to long-term outcome when compared to chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Due to the higher morbidity and mortality rates, these operations should be limited to specialist units with great experience in pancreatic surgery as well as experience in peri- and post-operative management of patients with pancreatic diseases.

14 Review The Sendai and Fukuoka consensus criteria for the management of branch duct IPMN - A meta-analysis on their accuracy. 2017

Heckler, Max / Michalski, Christoph W / Schaefle, Susanne / Kaiser, Jörg / Büchler, Markus W / Hackert, Thilo. ·Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: thilo.hackert@med.uni-heidelberg.de. ·Pancreatology · Pubmed #28189431.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The risk of malignancy in branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia of the pancreas (BD-IPMN) is controversially debated. An increasing number of studies report on outcomes using the Sendai or Fukuoka consensus criteria for treatment decision-making. The objective of this work was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Sendai and Fukuoka criteria. METHODS: We systematically reviewed studies on Sendai or Fukuoka criteria-guided management of BD-IPMN. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios as compound measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated from studies matching the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Fifteen studies with a total of 2710 patients were included. Twelve of these used the Sendai criteria. In these studies, 23% of Sendai-negative patients had a high grade dysplastic lesion or an invasive carcinoma in final histology. Pooled sensitivity was 56%, specificity was 74% and the diagnostic odds ratio for malignancy in Sendai-positive lesions was 7.45. When the results of follow-up examinations were included, diagnostic accuracy improved significantly (14.66, p < 0.001). Three studies were identified that used the Fukuoka criteria for decision making. Of 200 patients with Fukuoka-negative lesions who underwent surgery, 22 had a malignant lesion in final histology (11%). Pooled sensitivity was 83%, specificity was 53% and the diagnostic odds ratio was 8.76. CONCLUSION: The Fukuoka criteria have considerably improved sensitivity but still lack adequate specificity. For further reduction of a potential surgical overtreatment of BD-IPMN, the development of criteria with an increased specificity is required.

15 Review Definition and classification of chyle leak after pancreatic operation: A consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery. 2017

Besselink, Marc G / van Rijssen, L Bengt / Bassi, Claudio / Dervenis, Christos / Montorsi, Marco / Adham, Mustapha / Asbun, Horacio J / Bockhorn, Maximillian / Strobel, Oliver / Büchler, Markus W / Busch, Olivier R / Charnley, Richard M / Conlon, Kevin C / Fernández-Cruz, Laureano / Fingerhut, Abe / Friess, Helmut / Izbicki, Jakob R / Lillemoe, Keith D / Neoptolemos, John P / Sarr, Michael G / Shrikhande, Shailesh V / Sitarz, Robert / Vollmer, Charles M / Yeo, Charles J / Hartwig, Werner / Wolfgang, Christopher L / Gouma, Dirk J / Anonymous2270883. ·Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.g.besselink@amc.nl. · Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Surgery and Oncology, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of First Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Surgery, Humanitas Research Hospital and University, Milan, Italy. · Department of HPB Surgery, Hopital Edouard Herriot, HCL, UCBL1, Lyon, France. · Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. · Department of General-, Visceral-, and Thoracic-Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. · Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of HPB & Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. · Professorial Surgical Unit, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. · Department of Surgery, Clinic Hospital of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · First Department of Digestive Surgery, Hippokrateon Hospital, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; Section for Surgical Research, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. · Department of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and the Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. · Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Division of Subspecialty General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. · Department of GI and HPB Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India. · Department of Surgical Oncology, Medical University in Lublin, Poland. · Department of Surgery, Penn Medicine, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. · Department of Surgery, Jefferson Pancreas, Biliary and Related Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. · Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Ludwig Maximilians University, University of Munich, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD. ·Surgery · Pubmed #27692778.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Recent literature suggests that chyle leak may complicate up to 10% of pancreatic resections. Treatment depends on its severity, which may include chylous ascites. No international consensus definition or grading system of chyle leak currently is available. METHODS: The International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery, an international panel of pancreatic surgeons working in well-known, high-volume centers, reviewed the literature and worked together to establish a consensus on the definition and classification of chyle leak after pancreatic operation. RESULTS: Chyle leak was defined as output of milky-colored fluid from a drain, drain site, or wound on or after postoperative day 3, with a triglyceride content ≥110 mg/dL (≥1.2 mmol/L). Three different grades of severity were defined according to the management needed: grade A, no specific intervention other than oral dietary restrictions; grade B, prolongation of hospital stay, nasoenteral nutrition with dietary restriction, total parenteral nutrition, octreotide, maintenance of surgical drains, or placement of new percutaneous drains; and grade C, need for other more invasive in-hospital treatment, intensive care unit admission, or mortality. CONCLUSION: This classification and grading system for chyle leak after pancreatic resection allows for comparison of outcomes between series. As with the other the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery consensus statements, this classification should facilitate communication and evaluation of different approaches to the prevention and treatment of this complication.

16 Review [Therapy of locally advanced pancreatic cancer with FOLFIRINOX]. 2016

Strobel, O / Büchler, M W. ·Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. Oliver.Strobel@med.uni-heidelberg.de. · Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. ·Chirurg · Pubmed #27418266.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

17 Review Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. 2016

Hackert, Thilo / Ulrich, Alexis / Büchler, Markus W. ·Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: markus_buechler@med.uni-heidelberg.de. ·Cancer Lett · Pubmed #26970276.

ABSTRACT: Surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy remains the only treatment option for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with the chance of long-term survival. If a radical tumor resection is possible, 5-year survival rates of 20-25% can be achieved. Pancreatic surgery has significantly changed during the past years and resection approaches have been extended beyond standard procedures, including vascular and multivisceral resections. Consequently, borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR-PDAC), which has recently been defined by the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS), has become a controversial issue with regard to its management in terms of upfront resection vs. neoadjuvant treatment and sequential resection. Preoperative diagnostic accuracy to define resectability of PDAC is a keypoint in this context as well as the surgical and interdisciplinary expertise to perform advanced pancreatic surgery and manage complications. The present mini-review summarizes the current state of definition, management and outcome of BR-PDAC. Furthermore, the topic of ongoing and future studies on neoadjuvant treatment which is closely related to borderline resectability in PDAC is discussed.

18 Review Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. 2016

Hüttner, Felix J / Fitzmaurice, Christina / Schwarzer, Guido / Seiler, Christoph M / Antes, Gerd / Büchler, Markus W / Diener, Markus K. ·Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, Heidelberg, Germany, 69120. ·Cochrane Database Syst Rev · Pubmed #26905229.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, postoperative mortality, complications, and quality of life. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011, 9 January 2014, and 18 August 2015 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases on 18 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE (1946 to August 2015); and EMBASE (1980 to August 2015). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010); we did not update this part of the search for the 2014 and 2015 updates because the prior searches did not contribute any additional information. We identified two additional trials through the updated search in 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing CW versus PPW including participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs), and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included trials according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs with a total of 512 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. Postoperative mortality (OR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.54; P = 0.32), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P = 0.29), and morbidity showed no significant differences, except of delayed gastric emptying, which significantly favoured CW (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.05 to 8.70; P = 0.04). Furthermore, we noted that operating time (MD -45.22 minutes, 95% CI -74.67 to -15.78; P = 0.003), intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.32 L, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.03; P = 0.03), and red blood cell transfusion (MD -0.47 units, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.07; P = 0.02) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results were associated with low-quality evidence based on GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests no relevant differences in mortality, morbidity, and survival between the two operations. However, some perioperative outcome measures significantly favour the PPW procedure. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future high-quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions based on well-defined outcome parameters are required.

19 Review [Vascular resection and reconstruction techniques in pancreatic surgery]. 2016

Klose, J / Hackert, T / Büchler, M W / Ulrich, A. ·Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. · Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. Alexis.Ulrich@med.uni-heidelberg.de. ·Chirurg · Pubmed #26676369.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Vascular resection interventions and the associated necessity of a reconstruction for maintenance particularly of hepatic and small intestinal perfusion are important aspects especially for the surgical treatment of pancreatic cancer. An R0 resection is the only curative treatment option for patients with pancreatic cancer. Venous or arterial vascular infiltration by the tumor and the associated resection and reconstruction for complete tumor removal and establishment of a sufficient perfusion of the dependent organs represents one of the greatest challenges in pancreatic surgery. In addition the oncological significance with respect to arterial vascular resections is controversial. OBJECTIVE: In this review article the indications and technical aspects of vascular resection and reconstruction in the therapy of pancreatic cancer are presented and discussed based on the current literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library was carried out to identify studies reporting the results of venous or arterial vascular resection techniques, postoperative morbidity, mortality and patient survival after surgery for pancreatic cancer. Results Pancreatic cancer with vascular infiltration should not principally be seen as non-resectable but must always be checked for the possibility of a curative resection. A decisive factor is the differentiation between venous and arterial vascular involvement. Various safe technical options are available for venous vascular resection, depending on the extent of tumor infiltration. Arterial vascular resections are associated with an increased morbidity and mortality. In selected patients a complete tumor resection and prolonged survival can be achieved by arterial vascular resection.

20 Review Meta-analysis of surgical outcome after enucleation versus standard resection for pancreatic neoplasms. 2015

Hüttner, F J / Koessler-Ebs, J / Hackert, T / Ulrich, A / Büchler, M W / Diener, M K. ·Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. · Study Centre of the German Surgical Society, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. ·Br J Surg · Pubmed #26041666.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pancreatic enucleation is a tissue-sparing approach to pancreatic neoplasms and may result in better postoperative pancreatic function than standard pancreatic resection. The objective of this review was to compare the postoperative outcome after pancreatic enucleation versus standard resection. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically until February 2015 to identify studies comparing the outcome of enucleation versus standard resection for pancreatic neoplasms. After critical appraisal, meta-analysis was performed and the findings were presented as odds ratios or weighted mean differences with corresponding 95 per cent c.i. RESULTS: Twenty-two observational studies (1148 patients) were included. Duration of surgery (P < 0.001), blood loss (P < 0.001), length of hospital stay (P = 0.04), and postoperative endocrine (P < 0.001) and exocrine (P = 0.01) insufficiency were lower after enucleation than after standard resection. Mortality (P = 0.44), overall complications (P = 0.74), reoperation rate (P = 0.93) and delayed gastric emptying (P = 0.15) were not significantly different between the two approaches. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was higher after enucleation than after standard resection (P < 0.001). However, the raised POPF rate did not result in higher mortality or overall morbidity. Sensitivity analysis of high-volume studies (total of more than 20 enucleations and more than 4 per year) showed that, in specialized centres, enucleation can be performed with no increased risk of POPF (P = 0.12). CONCLUSION: Compared with standard resection, pancreatic enucleation can be performed effectively and with comparable safety in high-volume institutions. Enucleation should be considered instead of standard resection for selected pancreatic neoplasms.

21 Review Meta-analysis of complication rates for single-loop versus dual-loop (Roux-en-Y) with isolated pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy. 2015

Klaiber, U / Probst, P / Knebel, P / Contin, P / Diener, M K / Büchler, M W / Hackert, T. ·Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. ·Br J Surg · Pubmed #25644428.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula is one of the most important and potentially severe complications after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy. In this context, the reduction of postoperative pancreatic fistula by means of a dual-loop (Roux-en-Y) reconstruction with isolation of the pancreaticojejunostomy from biliary drainage has been evaluated in several studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes evidence of effectiveness and safety of the isolation of the pancreaticojejunostomy compared with conventional single-loop reconstruction. METHODS: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing outcomes of dual-loop reconstruction with isolated pancreaticojejunostomy and single-loop reconstruction were searched according to PRISMA guidelines. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed and the results presented as weighted risk ratios or mean differences with their corresponding 95 per cent c.i. RESULTS: Of 83 trials screened for eligibility, three RCTs and four CCTs including a total of 802 patients were finally included. Quantitative synthesis showed no significant statistical difference between the two procedures regarding postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, haemorrhage, intra-abdominal fluid collection or abscess, bile leakage, wound infection, pneumonia, overall morbidity, mortality, reinterventions, reoperations, perioperative blood loss and length of hospital stay. Duration of surgery was significantly longer in patients undergoing dual-loop reconstruction. CONCLUSION: Dual-loop (Roux-en-Y) reconstruction with isolated pancreaticojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy is not superior to single-loop reconstruction regarding pancreatic fistula rate or other relevant outcomes. Additional superiority trials are therefore not warranted, although a high-quality trial may be justified to prove equivalence or non-inferiority.

22 Review Pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm--where is the challenge? 2015

Fritz, Stefan / Hackert, Thilo / Büchler, Markus W. ·Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. ·Dig Dis · Pubmed #25531503.

ABSTRACT: Cystic lesions of the pancreas are increasingly recognized due to the widespread use of modern abdominal imaging technologies. The majority of these lesions display pseudocysts and mucinous cystic neoplasms. In contrast to pseudocysts, it is well established that mucinous cystic neoplasms of the pancreas exhibit a significant potential for malignant transformation over time. Among mucinous cystic tumors, the most frequently observed entity is pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). IPMNs are characterized by cystic dilation of pancreatic ducts and the production of mucus and by an adenoma-carcinoma sequence eventually culminating in invasive carcinoma in some patients. Due to the high risk of harboring malignancy, there is international consensus that IPMNs with involvement of the main pancreatic duct should be recommended for surgical resection. To date, the indication for surgery of branch-duct IPMNs is controversially discussed because of the overall lower risk of malignant transformation compared to main-duct IPMNs. Particularly for small and asymptomatic side-branch IPMNs, the indication for surgical resection remains challenging. In addition to the international consensus guidelines, a number of potential preoperative features predicting malignant transformation have been discussed recently. Moreover, novel surgical pancreatic parenchyma-sparing techniques such as enucleations or segmental pancreatic resections have been reported in order to treat IPMNs. The present article aims to demonstrate the current scientific knowledge in this field and to highlight the current controversy.

23 Review A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas: it's time to randomize. 2015

Mehrabi, Arianeb / Hafezi, Mohammadreza / Arvin, Jalal / Esmaeilzadeh, Majid / Garoussi, Camelia / Emami, Golnaz / Kössler-Ebs, Julia / Müller-Stich, Beat Peter / Büchler, Markus W / Hackert, Thilo / Diener, Markus K. ·Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: arianeb_mehrabi@med.uni-heidelberg.de. · Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. ·Surgery · Pubmed #25482464.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is regarded as a feasible and safe surgical alternative to open distal pancreatectomy for lesions of the pancreatic tail and body. The aim of the present systematic review was to provide recommendations for clinical practice and research on the basis of surgical morbidity, such as pancreas fistula, delayed gastric empting, safety, and clinical significance of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for malignant and nonmalignant diseases of the pancreas. METHODS: A systematic literature search (MEDLINE) was performed to identify all types of studies comparing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy. Random effects meta-analyses were calculated after critical appraisal of the included studies and presented as odds ratios or mean differences each with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 4,148 citations were retrieved initially; available data of 29 observational studies (3,701 patients overall) were included in the meta-analyses. Five systematic reviews on the same topic were found and critically appraised. Meta-analyses showed superiority of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in terms of blood loss, time to first oral intake, and hospital stay. All other parameters of operative morbidity and safety showed no difference. Data on oncologic radicality and effectiveness are limited. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy seems to be a safe and effective alternative to open distal pancreatectomy. No more nonrandomized trials are needed within this context. A large, randomized trial is warranted and should focus on oncologic effectiveness, defined end points, and cost-effectiveness.

24 Review Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. 2014

Diener, Markus K / Fitzmaurice, Christina / Schwarzer, Guido / Seiler, Christoph M / Hüttner, Felix J / Antes, Gerd / Knaebel, Hanns-Peter / Büchler, Markus W. ·Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. markuschar "A8penalty z@ buechler@med.uni-heidelberg.de ·Cochrane Database Syst Rev · Pubmed #25387229.

ABSTRACT: Background Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, mortality, complications and quality of life.Objectives The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.Search methods We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011 and 9 January 2014 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs),while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects(DARE) from The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1946 to January 2014); and EMBASE (1980 to January 2014). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010). We identified no additional studies upon updating the systematic review in 2014.Selection criteria We considered RCTs comparing CW versus PPW to be eligible if they included study participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.Main results We included six RCTs with a total of 465 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. In-hospital mortality (OR 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.40; P value 0.18), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P value 0.29) and morbidity showed no significant differences. However, we noted that operating time (MD -68.26 minutes, 95% CI -105.70 to -30.83; P value 0.0004) and intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.76 mL, 95%CI -0.96 to -0.56; P value < 0.00001) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results are associated with low quality of evidence as determined on the basis of GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.Authors' conclusions No evidence suggests relevant differences in mortality, morbidity and survival between the two operations. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future research must be undertaken to perform high-quality randomised controlled trials of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well-defined outcome parameters.

25 Review A systematic review of localization, surgical treatment options, and outcome of insulinoma. 2014

Mehrabi, Arianeb / Fischer, Lars / Hafezi, Mohammadreza / Dirlewanger, Antje / Grenacher, Lars / Diener, Markus K / Fonouni, Hamidreza / Golriz, Mohammd / Garoussi, Camelia / Fard, Nassim / Rahbari, Nuh N / Werner, Jens / Büchler, Markus W. ·From the Departments of *General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, †Radiology, and ‡Anesthesiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. ·Pancreas · Pubmed #24921202.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Insulinoma with an incidence of 0.4% is a rare pancreatic tumor. Preserving surgery is the treatment of choice. Exact localization is necessary to plan the appropriate approach. This article gives an overview on localization and surgical strategies for treatment of insulinoma. METHODS: In this systematic review, 114 articles with 6222 cases of insulinoma were reviewed with emphasis on localization techniques and surgical treatment. RESULTS: Insulinoma happens mostly in the fifth decade of life, with a higher incidence in men. They occur mostly sporadic (94%), benign (87%), and single (90%). Insulinomas are mostly smaller than 20 mm (84%). The tumors are distributed almost equally in the pancreas. CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography is routinely used as first choice preoperatively. Intraoperative inspection, palpation, and sonography were applied with high success rate. Intraoperative sonography is considered as the most reliable technique. Enucleation is the most administered type of surgery (56%). Different types of resection include distal pancreatectomy (32%), Whipple procedure (3%), and subtotal pancreatectomy (<3%). Despite the development of laparoscopy, open approach is the favorite method (90%). The most common surgical complication is fistula. The mortality rate of open approach was higher (4 vs 0%). Despite high cure rate, recurrence of insulinoma occurs in 7% after surgery.

Next