Summary

胰腺癌的腹腔镜根左造影切除术:手术策略与技术视频

Published: June 06, 2020
doi:

Summary

肿瘤学上安全的左造体切除术需要彻底切除(R0)、Gerota的(肾外)筋膜切除和适当的淋巴结解剖。本研究描述了腹腔镜基左造影切除术(LRLP)的技术细节,该试验用于第一个国际多中心随机试验,比较胰腺癌的微创性与左开胰腺切除术,DIPLOMA试验。

Abstract

根切除边缘、切除Gerota(肾外腺)筋膜和足够的淋巴结解剖对于对左侧胰腺癌进行充分的肿瘤切除至关重要。近年来,人们描述了几种外科技术,但很少有手术技术是专门为微创方法设计的。这项研究描述并演示了一种标准化和可重复的技术,用于胰腺癌的肿瘤切除:腹腔镜基左造影术(LRLP)。

一名61岁的妇女偶然发现左胰腺中一个3厘米质量的恶性肿瘤嫌疑人。成像没有显示遥远的转移,中枢血管参与,或病态肥胖,因此患者适合LRLP。本研究描述了LRLP治疗胰腺癌的主要步骤。首先,较小的囊通过横断肠韧带打开。结肠的脾脏弯曲被动员起来,胰腺的劣质边界,包括杰罗塔的筋膜被解剖到脾脏的劣为边界。胰腺是隧道和悬挂,包括Gerota的筋膜与船环。在胰腺颈部,胰腺和入口静脉之间形成一条隧道,同样通过血管回路。然后,使用内皮板的分级压缩技术将胰腺进行转断。在完成切除之前,体膜静脉和动脉均被横断体。整个标本通过小普法南斯蒂尔切口在检索袋中提取。

手术持续时间为210分钟,失血250mL。病理学揭示了一个R0切除(>1毫米)的一个良好到中度分化的腺癌,起源于一个内电导的皮毛体粘结肿瘤。共有15个肿瘤阴性淋巴结被切除。这是左侧胰腺癌LRLP的详细描述,目前在国际多中心随机科文图(离心造微菌微创或PDAC开放)试验中使用。

Introduction

手术切除与全身化疗相结合,是治疗可切除胰腺癌的最有效办法。几个元分析显示,良性和恶性疾病11,2,3,4,5,62,3,4,5,6的微创和开放远端造体切除术的可比结果。最近,第一个多中心随机试验显示,与开放远端造影(ODP)7相比,使用腹腔镜远端造影切除术(LDP)的功能恢复时间较短。7虽然微创技术在经验丰富的外科医生16,1715,,148、9、10、11、12、139,进行时,对8左造血术是安全和可行的,但与治疗胰腺癌的开放手术方法相比,微创手术的非自卑性仍有待讨论。10,11,12,13泛欧调查显示,31%的胰腺外科医生认为ODP优于微创直肠造样切除术(MIDP),在胰腺癌的肿瘤边缘和淋巴切除术方面。在欧洲和全球层面,19-20%的参与外科医生认为恶性肿瘤是微创方法18、19,19的禁忌。

鉴于目前缺乏关于MIDP有效性的随机对照试验,唯一可用于比较这些程序的现有数据仅限于回顾性和前瞻性队列研究。在最近关于胰腺癌MIDP与ODP肿瘤安全性的系统回顾和荟萃分析中,两组在肿瘤结果(OR = 0.49,p = 0.12)和整体存活率(OS = 3 年,HR = 1.03,p = 0.66)方面没有差异; p pOS = 5 年,HR = p 0.91,p = 0.59)被看到20。另一项系统综述显示MIDP与ODP在整体存活率方面可有可比结果,利润率为负(R0)切除率略高,但以MIDP21中淋巴结切除较低为代价。

正如Strasberg在2003年描述的那样,激进的前科模块化胰腺切除术(RAMPS)技术旨在对胰腺导管腺癌(PDAC)进行更好的、激进的切除,包括切除Gerota的筋膜15。腹腔镜基左造影切除术(LRLP)技术,如Abu Hilal等人16所述,旨在通过结合正式淋巴腺切除术和无接触技术,获得相同的结果,但在微创手术期间。因此,可以获得一个激进的肿瘤切除,尽量减少肿瘤传播和播种的风险15,22。15,该技术的标准化允许在不同的卫生保健中心进行重复和采用。本文介绍了LRLP,因为该技术目前用于国际多中心随机的DIPLOMA试验16、23。16,

Protocol

1. 患者选择 选择胰腺体或尾部有前期可排位胰腺癌的患者,在近期对比增强的CT扫描(最多4周大)上可见,无需下例新发治疗。 不包括转移性疾病或血管参与的血管参与,但除增静脉或动脉24外。 在训练期间,最好排除身体最大指数 (BMI) > 35 kg/m2、复发性急性或慢性胰腺炎、以前的大腹部手术或胰腺靶向放射治疗的患者。 <p class="jove_titl…

Representative Results

一名61岁的妇女在外科门诊部出现轻度肝功能障碍。在CT和MRI扫描中,在胰腺尾部疑似恶性肿瘤的3厘米质量的偶然发现被发现与左肾上腺的潜在参与(见图2)。在术前对比增强CT扫描中,没有发现遥远的转移或淋巴结参与。因此,患者被认为适合微创方法。 总手术时间是210分钟,失血250mL。术中肾上腺未参与,LRLP被执行,使肾上腺留在原位。术后课程并…

Discussion

该技术的优点
LRLP 是一个标准化、可重复和安全的程序,如果由经验丰富的外科医生执行。此外,这种微创手术提供低术中失血,早期动员,和短期住院,这得到LEOPARD试验7所证实。胰腺癌手术必须着眼于彻底切除,适当的淋巴切除术,和无接触解剖,以防止肿瘤细胞的种子和传播16,28。16,Laparoscopy可以提供高质量的可?…

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

这种技术最初是由阿布·希拉勒等人16日描述的。

Materials

Arietta Ultrasound Hitachi Intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasonography
Autosuture Endo Clip applier 5 mm Covidien 176620 Sling use clip applier, 5 mm
Blue reload for Echelon 60 Ethicon GST60B Regular tissue thickness, open staple height 3.6 mm, closed staple height 1.5 mm
ECHELON FLEX ENDOPATH 60mm Stapler Ethicon GST60T Powered surgical stapler with gripping surface technology
Endo Catch II Pouch 15 mm Covidien 173049 For single lymph node extractions a cut off finger surgical glove can be used.
Green reload for Echelon 60 Ethicon GST60G Thick tissue thickness, open staple height 4.1 mm, closed staple height 2.0 mm
Harmonic Advanced Hemostasis 36 cm Ethicon HARH36 Curved tip, energy sealing and dissecting, diameter 5 mm, length 36 cm
Hem-o-lok Clips MLX Weck Surgical Instruments, Teleflex Medical, Durham, NC 544230 Vascular clip 3 mm – 10 mm Size Range
Hem-o-lok clips Xl Weck Surgical Instruments, Teleflex Medical, Durham, NC 544250 Vascular clip 7 mm – 16 mm Size Range
Hem-o-Lok Polymer Ligation System Weck Surgical Instruments, Teleflex Medical, Durham, NC 544965
LigaSure Dolphin Tip Laparoscopic Sealer/Divider Medtronic LS1500 Dolphin-nose tip sealer and divider, 37 cm shaft
White reload for Echelon 60 Ethicon GST60W Mesentery/thin tissue thickness, open staple height 2.6 mm, closed staple height 1.0 mm

References

  1. Sui, C. J., et al. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis. Asian Journal of Surgery. 35, 1-8 (2012).
  2. Venkat, R., et al. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Surgery. 255, 1048-1059 (2012).
  3. Pericleous, S., et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of case-matched studies comparing open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: is it a safe procedure. Pancreas. 41, 993-1000 (2012).
  4. Jin, T., et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. HPB. 14, 711-724 (2012).
  5. Jusoh, A. C., Ammori, B. J. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies. Surgical Endoscopy. 26, 904-913 (2012).
  6. Xie, K., et al. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is as safe and feasible as open procedure: A meta-analysis. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 18, 1959-1967 (2012).
  7. De Rooij, T., et al. Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): A Multicenter Patient-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial. Annals of Surgery. 269, 2-9 (2019).
  8. Kim, S. C., et al. Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and open distal pancreatic resection at a single institution. Surgical Endoscopy. 22, 2261-2268 (2008).
  9. Mehta, S. S., et al. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: A single-institution case-control study. Surgical Endoscopy. 26, 402-407 (2012).
  10. Melotti, G., et al. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Results on a consecutive series of 58 patients. Annals of Surgery. 246, 77-82 (2007).
  11. Abu Hilal, M., et al. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: A clinical and cost-effectiveness study. Surgical Endoscopy. 26, 1670-1674 (2012).
  12. Richardson, J., et al. Implementation of enhanced recovery programme for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Feasibility, safety and cost analysis. Pancreatology. 15, 185-190 (2015).
  13. Abu Hilal, M., et al. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Critical analysis of preliminary experience from a tertiary referral centre. Surgical Endoscopy. 23, 2743-2747 (2009).
  14. van Hilst, J., et al. Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study. Annals of Surgery. 269, 10-17 (2019).
  15. Strasberg, S. M., Drebin, J. A., Linehan, D. Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy. Surgery. 133, 521-527 (2003).
  16. Abu Hilal, M., et al. Laparoscopic radical ‘no-touch’ left pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: technique and results. Surgical Endoscopy. 30, 3830-3838 (2016).
  17. Abu Hilal, M., Takhar, A. S. Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy: Current concepts. Pancreatology. 13, 443-448 (2013).
  18. De Rooij, T., et al. Pan-European survey on the implementation of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery with emphasis on cancer. HPB. 18, 170-176 (2016).
  19. Van Hilst, J., et al. Worldwide survey on opinions and use of minimally invasive pancreatic resection. HPB. 19, 190-204 (2017).
  20. Yang, D. J., et al. The oncological safety in minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports. 9, 1159 (2019).
  21. Van Hilst, J., et al. Oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 45, 719-727 (2018).
  22. O’Morchoe, C. C. C. Lymphatic system of the pancreas. Microscopy Research and Technique. 37, 456-477 (1997).
  23. Van Hilst, J., et al. Distal pancreatectomy, minimally invasive or open, for malignancy. ISRCTN Registry. , (2019).
  24. Ducreux, M., et al. Cancer of the pancreas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology Official Journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 26, 56-68 (2015).
  25. Dokmak, S., et al. Double Gastric Hanging for Gastric Exposure in Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy. Digestive Surgery. , 1-6 (2019).
  26. Asbun, H. J., Stauffer, J. A. Laparoscopic approach to distal and subtotal pancreatectomy: A clockwise technique. Surgical Endoscopy. 25, 2643-2649 (2011).
  27. Kim, H., et al. Optimal stapler cartridge selection according to the thickness of the pancreas in distal pancreatectomy. The American Journal of Medicine. 95, 0 (2016).
  28. Hirota, M., et al. Pancreatoduodenectomy using a no-touch isolation technique. The American Journal of Surgery. 199, 65-68 (2010).
  29. Magge, D., et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma. JAMA Surgery. 148, 525-531 (2013).
  30. Kooby, D. A., et al. Left-sided pancreatectomy: A multicenter comparison of laparoscopic and open approaches. Annals of Surgery. 248, 438-446 (2008).
  31. Stauffer, J. A., et al. Comparison of open with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: A single institution’s transition over a 7-year period. HPB. 15, 149-155 (2013).
  32. Baker, M. S., Bentrem, D. J., Ujiki, M. B., Stocker, S., Talamonti, M. S. A prospective single institution comparison of peri-operative outcomes for laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. Surgery. 146, 635-643 (2009).
  33. Jayaraman, S., et al. Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Evolution of a Technique at a Single Institution. ACS. 211, 503-509 (2010).
  34. van Rijssen, L. B., et al. Variation in hospital mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy is related to failure to rescue rather than major complications: a nationwide audit. HPB. 20, 759-767 (2018).
  35. de Rooij, T., Sitarz, R., Busch, O. R., Besselink, M. G., Abu Hilal, M. Technical Aspects of Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign and Malignant Disease: Review of the Literature. Gastroenterology of Research and Practice. 2015, 472906 (2015).
check_url/60332?article_type=t

Play Video

Cite This Article
Vissers, F. L., Zwart, M. J., Balduzzi, A., Korrel, M., Lof, S., Abu Hilal, M., Besselink, M. G. Laparoscopic Radical Left Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Cancer: Surgical Strategy and Technique Video. J. Vis. Exp. (160), e60332, doi:10.3791/60332 (2020).

View Video