Robotic-assisted central pancreatectomy: A minimally invasive approach for benign and low-grade lesions

BackgroundCentrally located pancreatic lesions are often treated with extended pancreaticoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy resulting in loss of healthy parenchyma and a high risk of diabetes and exocrine insufficiency. Robotic central pancreatectomy (RCP) is a parenchyma sparring alternative that has been shown safe and feasible [[1], [2]].MethodsIn this article, we describe our operative technique and the perioperative outcomes of a series of RCP for low-grade or benign pancreatic tumors.ResultsSix patients (5 female and 1 man) with a median age of 51.5 (44–68) years underwent a RCP for 2 serous cystadenomas, 2 mucinous cystic tumors, 1 neuroendocrine tumor, and 1 autoimmune pancreatitis. There were no conversions, intraoperative complications, or perioperative transfusions. Median operative time and was 240 (230–291) minutes and median blood loss was 100 (100–400) ml. The median hospital stay was 8 (5–27) days. There were no mortalities, reoperations, or readmissions. One patient developed a grade B pancreatic fistula which was successfully managed conservatively. All resections had free margins and the median tumor size was 2.5 (1.5–3.5) cm. After a mean follow-up of 46 months, no patients presented new-onset diabetes or exocrine insufficiency.ConclusionsRCP represents the least invasive option for both the patient and the pancreatic parenchyma. With a standardized technique, RCP results in low postoperative morbidity and excellent long-term pancreatic function. Although our results are excellent, POPF still represents the main complication of central pancreatectomy with an incidence ranging from 0 to 80% depending on multiple factors such as the surgeon, technique, and pancreatic texture.     

Outcomes of Fluoroscopy-Guided Percutaneous High Ligation of the Great Saphenous Vein Combined With Foam Sclerotherapy for Symptomatic Great Saphenous Veins

PurposeTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous high ligation (FPHL) combined with fluoroscopy-guided foam sclerotherapy (FGFS) to treat varicose veins of the great saphenous veins (GSVs).Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective study of 113 patients (mean age, 62.1 ± 10.8 years; 60 men) with varicose veins of the GSVs (133 limbs) that were treated with FPHL combined with FGFS between April 1 and October 31, 2019. Demographic and clinical data were collected from these patients before the FPHL procedure, after which FGFS was performed. The preterminal GSV was ligated percutaneously by a percutaneously-positioned polypropylene ligature under fluoroscopic guidance. The outcome of ligation was confirmed by venography. Then, foam sclerotherapy was performed under fluoroscopy. At 1-year follow-up, GSV occlusion was evaluated by ultrasound. The venous clinical severity scores (VCSSs) were compared between the preoperative and 1-year follow-up periods.ResultsThe technical success rate was 100% (133 limbs). Complete 12-month follow-up was available for 112 limbs (84.2%) and 103 of these limbs (92.0%) remained occluded during this period. The VCSS improved from 4.71 ± 2.15 to 0.74 ± 0.60 (V = 6328, P < .001). During follow-up, there were 16 limbs with thrombophlebitis and 38 limbs with saphenous junction pain; these events were alleviated within 2 weeks of the procedure. There was no deep venous thrombosis or other severe adverse events.ConclusionsFPHL combined with FGFS to treat varicose veins in the GSVs achieved an occlusion rate of 92% and improved the clinical symptoms within 1 year; this minimally-invasive procedure was safe and effective.     

Utilization of and Outcomes Associated with Intravascular Ultrasound during Deep Venous Stent Placement among Medicare Beneficiaries

PurposeTo evaluate temporal trends, practice variation, and associated outcomes with the use of intravascular ultrasound (US) during deep venous stent placement among Medicare beneficiaries.Materials and MethodsAll lower extremity deep venous stent placement procedures performed between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019 among Medicare beneficiaries were included. Temporal trends in intravascular US use were stratified by procedural setting and physician specialty. The primary outcome was a composite of 12-month all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, or repeat target vessel intervention. The secondary outcome was a composite of 12-month stent thrombosis, embolization, or restenosis.ResultsAmong the 20,984 deep venous interventions performed during the study period, 15,184 (72.4%) utilized intravascular US. Moderate growth in intravascular US use was observed during the study period in all clinical settings. There was a variation in the use of intravascular US among all operators (median, 77.3% of cases; interquartile range, 20.0%–99.2%). In weighted analyses, intravascular US use during deep venous stent placement was associated with a lower risk of both the primary (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–0.76; P < .001) and secondary (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.27–0.39; P < .001) composite end points.ConclusionsIntravascular US is frequently used during deep venous stent placement among Medicare beneficiaries, with further increase in use from 2017 to 2019. The utilization of intravascular US as part of a procedural strategy was associated with a lower cumulative incidence of adverse outcomes after the procedure, including venous stent thrombosis and embolization.