Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Elizabeth M. Kilbane
Based on 7 articles published since 2010
(Why 7 articles?)
||||

Between 2010 and 2020, E. M. Kilbane wrote the following 7 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Article Indication for en bloc pancreatectomy with colectomy: when is it safe? 2018

Schwartz, Patrick B / Roch, Alexandra M / Han, Jane S / Vaicius, Alex V / Lancaster, William P / Kilbane, E Molly / House, Michael G / Zyromski, Nicholas J / Schmidt, C Max / Nakeeb, Atilla / Ceppa, Eugene P. ·Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, 545 Barnhill Dr. EH541, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. · Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, 545 Barnhill Dr. EH541, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. eceppa@iupui.edu. ·Surg Endosc · Pubmed #28664444.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Aggressive en bloc resection of adjacent organs is often necessary to resect pancreatic or colonic lesions. However, it is debated whether simultaneous pancreatectomy with colectomy (P+C) is warranted as it potentially increases morbidity and mortality (MM). We hypothesized that MM would be increased in P+C, especially in cases of pancreatitis. METHODS: All patients who underwent pancreatectomy (P) and simultaneous pancreatectomy with colectomy (P+C) at a high-volume center from November 2006 to 2015 were prospectively collected using ACS-NSQIP at our institution. Patients with additional multivisceral or enucleation procedures were excluded. Data were augmented to 90-day outcomes using our institutional database. RESULTS: Forty-three patients with a mean age of 62 years (27:16 male: female) underwent P+C, accounting for 2.39% (43/1797) of pancreatectomies performed. Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) was performed in 61% (n = 26), distal pancreatectomy (DP) in 37% (n = 16), and total pancreatectomy (TP) in 2% (n = 1) of patients. The 30- and 90-day MM were higher in P+C than P (30-day: 54 vs. 37%, p = 0.037 and 9 vs. 2%, p = 0.022; 90-day: 61 vs. 42%, p = 0.019 and 14 vs. 3%, p = 0.002). Logistical regression modeling revealed an association between 90-day mortality and colectomy (p = 0.013, OR = 3.556). When P+C MM were analyzed according to intraoperative factors, there was no significant difference according to type of pancreatectomy (PD vs. DP vs. TP), origin of primary lesion (pancreas vs. colon), surgical indication (malignant vs. non-malignant), or case status (planned colectomy vs. intraoperative decision). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of colectomy to pancreatectomy substantially increased MM. Subanalysis revealed that type of resection performed, etiology, and planning status did not account for increased risk when performing P+C. However, colectomy was found to be an independent risk factor for mortality. Therefore, patients should be informed of the risk of increased postoperative complications until a further study can identify potential patients or perioperative factors that can be used for risk stratification.

2 Article Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer is safe and effective. 2018

Bauman, Marita D / Becerra, David G / Kilbane, E Molly / Zyromski, Nicholas J / Schmidt, C Max / Pitt, Henry A / Nakeeb, Attila / House, Michael G / Ceppa, Eugene P. ·Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, 545 Barnhill Dr, EH 541, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. eceppa@iupui.edu. · Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, 545 Barnhill Dr, EH 541, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. ·Surg Endosc · Pubmed #28643065.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To compare the short-term and oncologic outcomes of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). METHODS: Consecutive cases of distal pancreatectomy (DP) (n = 422) were reviewed at a single high-volume institution over a 10-year period (2005-2014). Inclusion criteria consisted of any patient with PDAC by surgical pathology. Ninety-day outcomes were monitored through a prospectively maintained pancreatic resection database. The Social Security Death Index was used for 5-year survival. Two-way statistical analyses were used to compare categories; variance was reported with standard error of the mean; * indicates P value <0.05. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients underwent DP for PDAC. Thirty-three underwent LDP and 46 ODP. There were no statistical differences in demographics, BMI, and ASA classification. Intraoperative and surgical pathology variables were comparable for LDP versus ODP: operative time (3.9 ± 0.2 vs. 4.2 ± 0.2 h), duct size, gland texture, stump closure, tumor size (3.3 ± 0.3 vs. 4.0 ± 0.4 cm), lymph node harvest (14.5 ± 1.1 vs. 17.5 ± 1.2), tumor stage (see table), and negative surgical margins (77 vs. 87%). Patients who underwent LDP experienced lower blood loss (310 ± 68 vs. 597 ± 95 ml; P = 0.016*) and required fewer transfusions (0 vs. 13; P = 0.0008*). Patients who underwent LDP had fewer positive lymph nodes (0.8 ± 0.2 vs. 1.6 ± 0.3; P = 0.04*) and a lower incidence of type C pancreatic fistula (0 vs. 13%; P = 0.03*). Median follow-up for all patients was 11.4 months. Long-term oncologic outcomes revealed similar outcomes including distant or local recurrence (30 vs. 52%; P = 0.05) and median survival (18 vs. 15 months), as well as 1-year (73 vs. 59%), 3-year (22 vs. 21%), and 5-year (20 vs. 15%) survival for LDP and ODP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this series suggest that LDP is a safe surgical approach that is comparable from an oncologic standpoint to ODP for the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

3 Article Reduced morbidity with minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. 2017

Plotkin, Anastasia / Ceppa, Eugene P / Zarzaur, Ben L / Kilbane, Elizabeth M / Riall, Taylor S / Pitt, Henry A. ·Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. · Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Electronic address: eceppa@iupui.edu. · Indiana University Health University Hospital, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA. · Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. · Department of Surgery, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. ·HPB (Oxford) · Pubmed #28161217.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MISDP) has been shown to be safe relative to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). However, MISDP has been slow to adopt for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study sought to compare outcomes following MISDP vs. ODP for PDAC. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected from 2011 to 2014 for DP by the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Patients without PDAC on surgical pathology were excluded. Impact of minimally invasive approach on morbidity and mortality was analyzed using two-way statistical analyses. RESULTS: Of 6198 patients undergoing DP, 501 (7.5%) had a pathologic diagnosis of PDAC. MISDP was undertaken in 166 (33.1%) patients, ODP was performed in 335 (66.9%). MISDP and ODP were not different in preoperative comorbidities or pathologic stage. Overall morbidity (MISDP 31%, ODP 42%; p = 0.024), transfusion (MISDP 6%, ODP 23%; p = 0.0001), pneumonia (MISDP 1%, ODP 7%; p = 0.004), surgical site infections (MISDP 8%, OPD 17%; p = 0.013), sepsis (MISDP 2%, ODP 8%; p = 0.007), and length of stay (MISDP 5.0 days, ODP 7.0 days; p = 0.009) were lower in the MIS group. Mortality (MISDP 0%, ODP 1%; p = 0.307), pancreatic fistula (MISDP 12%, ODP 19%; p = 0.073), and delayed gastric emptying (MISDP 3%, ODP 7%; p = 0.140) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of a large multi-institution North American experience of DP for treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma suggests that short-term postoperative outcomes are improved with MISDP.

4 Article Reducing Readmissions after Pancreatectomy: Limiting Complications and Coordinating the Care Continuum. 2015

Ceppa, Eugene P / Pitt, Henry A / Nakeeb, Attila / Schmidt, C Max / Zyromski, Nicholas J / House, Michael G / Kilbane, E Molly / George-Minkner, Alisha N / Brand, Beth / Lillemoe, Keith D. ·Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN. · Department of Surgery, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: Henry.pitt@tuhs.temple.edu. · Department of Nursing, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, IN. · Clinical Decision Support, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, IN. · Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. ·J Am Coll Surg · Pubmed #26228016.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Recent analyses of gastrointestinal operations document that complications are a key driver of readmissions. Pancreatectomy is a high outlier with respect to readmission. This analysis sought to determine if a multifactorial approach could reduce readmissions after pancreatectomy. STUDY DESIGN: From 2007 to 2012, the number of patients readmitted by 30 days after pancreaticoduodenectomy, and distal and total pancreatectomy was measured. Steps to decrease readmissions were implemented independently at 1-year intervals; these efforts included strategies to reduce complications, creation of a Readmissions Team with a "discharge coach," increased use of home health, preferred relationships with post-acute care facilities, and the adoption of "Project RED" (Re-Engineered Discharge). The ACS NSQIP was used to track 30-day outcomes for all pancreatic resections. The University HealthSystem Consortium was used to determine length of stay index. RESULTS: Over 5 years, 1,163 patients underwent proximal (66%), distal (32%), or total pancreatectomy (2%). The observed 30-day mortality was 2.9% for the study period, and the length of stay index (observed/expected days) was 1.10. Neither varied significantly over time. However, 30-day morbidity decreased from 57% to 46%, and proportion of patients with 30-day all-cause readmissions decreased from 23.0% to 11.5% (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: All-cause 30-day readmissions after pancreatectomy decreased without increasing length of stay. Efforts by surgeons to decrease complications and an increased emphasis on coordination of care may be useful for reducing readmissions.

5 Article Distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection: what are the added risks? 2015

Beane, Joal D / House, Michael G / Pitt, Susan C / Kilbane, E Molly / Hall, Bruce L / Parmar, Abishek D / Riall, Taylor S / Pitt, Henry A. ·Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. · Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. · University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA. · Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. ·HPB (Oxford) · Pubmed #26201994.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Reported series of a distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR) are either small or not adequately controlled. The aim of this analysis was to report a multicentre series of modified Appleby procedures with a comparison group to determine the relative operative risk. METHODS: Data were gathered through the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Pancreatectomy Demonstration Project. Over 14 months, 822 patients underwent a distal pancreatectomy at 43 institutions. Twenty of these patients (2.4%) also underwent a celiac axis resection. DP-CAR patients were matched by age, gender, BMI, serum albumin, ASA class, gland texture, duct size and pathology to 172 patients undergoing DP alone. RESULTS: The majority of DP and DP-CAR patients had adenocarcinomas (61% and 60%). The median operative time for a DP alone was shorter than for a DP-CAR (207 versus 276 min, P < 0.01). Post-operative acute kidney injury (1% versus 10%, P < 0.03) and 30-day mortality were higher after a DP-CAR (1% versus 10%, P < 0.03). CONCLUSION: A distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection is associated with increased operative time, post-operative acute kidney injury and a 10% operative mortality. The decision to offer a modified Appleby procedure for a body of pancreas tumour should be made with full disclosure of the increased risks.

6 Article Does Pancreatic Stump Closure Method Influence Distal Pancreatectomy Outcomes? 2015

Ceppa, Eugene P / McCurdy, Robert M / Becerra, David C / Kilbane, E Molly / Zyromski, Nicholas J / Nakeeb, Attila / Schmidt, C Max / Lillemoe, Keith D / Pitt, Henry A / House, Michael G. ·Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, 545 Barnhill Dr, EH 541, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA, eceppa@iupui.edu. ·J Gastrointest Surg · Pubmed #25903852.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pancreatic fistula remains the primary source of morbidity following distal pancreatectomy. Previous studies have reported specific methods of parenchymal transection/stump sealing in an effort to decrease the pancreatic fistula rate with highly variable results. The aim of this study was to determine postoperative outcomes following various pancreatic stump-sealing methods. STUDY DESIGN: All cases of distal pancreatectomy were reviewed at a single institution between January 2008 and June 2011 and were monitored with complete 30-day outcomes through ACS-NSQIP. Pancreatic stump-sealing method was used to create three operation groups (suture, staple, or saline-linked radiofrequency). Two- and three-way statistical analyses were performed among the operation groups. RESULTS: Two hundred three patients underwent distal pancreatectomy. The most common diagnoses included chronic pancreatitis, adenocarcinoma, and IPMN. The suture, staple, and SLRF groups included 90 (44%), 61 (30%), and 52 (26%) patients, respectively. Overall complications (range 31-38%) and pancreatic fistula (range 25-26%) were similar with each pancreatic closure technique. Operative technique was not associated with an increased need for postoperative interventions or hospital readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative outcomes after distal pancreatectomy are unaffected by the use of SLRF sealing of the pancreatic stump when compared to traditional suture or reinforced stapling techniques.

7 Article Low drain fluid amylase predicts absence of pancreatic fistula following pancreatectomy. 2014

Lee, Christina W / Pitt, Henry A / Riall, Taylor S / Ronnekleiv-Kelly, Sean S / Israel, Jacqueline S / Leverson, Glen E / Parmar, Abhishek D / Kilbane, E Molly / Hall, Bruce L / Weber, Sharon M. ·Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792, USA. ·J Gastrointest Surg · Pubmed #25112411.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Improvements in the ability to predict pancreatic fistula could enhance patient outcomes. Previous studies demonstrate that drain fluid amylase on postoperative day 1 (DFA1) is predictive of pancreatic fistula. We sought to assess the accuracy of DFA1 and to identify a reliable DFA1 threshold under which pancreatic fistula is ruled out. METHODS: Patients undergoing pancreatic resection from November 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012 were selected from the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pancreatectomy Demonstration Project database. Pancreatic fistula was defined as drainage of amylase-rich fluid with drain continuation >7 days, percutaneous drainage, or reoperation for a pancreatic fluid collection. Univariate and multi-variable regression models were utilized to identify factors predictive of pancreatic fistula. RESULTS: DFA1 was recorded in 536 of 2,805 patients who underwent pancreatic resection, including pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 380), distal pancreatectomy (n = 140), and enucleation (n = 16). Pancreatic fistula occurred in 92/536 (17.2%) patients. DFA1, increased body mass index, small pancreatic duct size, and soft texture were associated with fistula (p < 0.05). A DFA1 cutoff value of <90 U/L demonstrated the highest negative predictive value of 98.2%. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve confirmed the predictive relationship of DFA1 and pancreatic fistula. CONCLUSION: Low DFA1 predicts the absence of a pancreatic fistula. In patients with DFA1 < 90 U/L, early drain removal is advisable.