Central pancreatectomy prevents postoperative diabetes

Cross-sectional imaging after pancreatic surgery: The dialogue between the radiologist and the surgeon

Pancreatic surgery is nowadays considered one of the most complex surgical approaches and not unscathed from complications. After the surgical procedure, cross-sectional imaging is considered the non-invasive reference standard to detect early and late compilations, and consequently to address patients to the best management possible. Contras-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) should be considered the most important and useful imaging technique to evaluate the surgical site. Thanks to its speed, contrast, and spatial resolution, it can help reach the final diagnosis with high accuracy. On the other hand, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be considered as a second-line imaging approach, especially for the evaluation of biliary findings and late complications. In both cases, the radiologist should be aware of protocols and what to look at, to create a robust dialogue with the surgeon and outline a fitted treatment for each patient.

Recent trends in organ-preserving pancreatectomy: Its problems and clinical advantages compared with other standard pancreatectomies

In this review article, we focus on recent papers on organ-preserving pancreatectomy procedures published since 2010. When comparing central pancreatectomy (CP) and distal pancreatectomy (DP), most studies have concluded that the CP group exhibited significantly lower incidence of new-onset diabetes or diabetes exacerbation than the DP group postoperatively. However, because of increased incidence of morbidities such as pancreatic fistula, the surgeon faces a considerable trade-off between increased short-term morbidity and long-term preservation of endocrine function. When the outcomes of two types of spleen-preserving DP (Kimura and Warshaw procedures) are compared, most studies mentioned the low incidence of postoperative gastric varices and splenic infarction with the Kimura procedure. Although there are several reports regarding the effect of spleen preservation on prevention of postoperative infections, no report on the contribution of spleen preservation to the prevention of overwhelming post-splenectomy infection is seen. The advantages of duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) concerning endocrine and exocrine functions continue to be subjects of discussion, mainly due to the limited number of institutions that have adopted this approach; however, DPPHR should be presented as an option for patients due to its low incidence of postoperative cholangitis. Organ-preserving pancreatectomy requires meticulous surgical techniques, and postoperative complications may increase with this surgery compared with standard pancreatectomy, which may be influenced by the surgeon's skill and the surgical facility where the procedure is performed. Nonetheless, this technique has significant long-term advantages in terms of endocrine and exocrine functions and its wider adoption in the future is expected.

Pancreatectomy and Pancreatic Surgery

Pancreatectomy, including pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), as well as central pancreatectomy (CP), distal pancreatectomy (DP) and total/subtotal pancreatectomy, is a major, complex and difficult surgical procedure performed for various benign and malignant pancreatic diseases: from chronic pancreatitis, through benign cystic tumors and neuroendocrine neoplasms to malignant neoplasms, including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) [...].

Outcomes of Duct-to-Mucosa vs. Invagination Pancreatojejunostomy: Toward a Personalized Approach for Distal Pancreatic Stump Anastomosis in Central Pancreatectomy?

(1) Background: The jejunum is primarily used for distal pancreatic stump anastomoses after central pancreatectomy (CP). The study aimed to compare duct-to-mucosa (WJ) and distal pancreatic invagination into jejunum anastomoses (PJ) after CP. (2) Methods: All patients with CP and jejunal anastomoses (between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2022) were retrospectively assessed and compared. (3) Results: 29 CP were analyzed: WJ-12 patients (41.4%) and PJ-17 patients (58.6%). The operative time was significantly higher in the WJ vs. PJ group of patients (195 min vs. 140 min, p = 0.012). Statistically higher rates of patients within the high-risk fistula group were observed in the PJ vs. WJ group (52.9% vs. 0%, p = 0.003). However, no differences were observed between the groups regarding the overall, severe, and specific postpancreatectomy morbidity rates (p values ≥ 0.170). (4) Conclusions: The WJ and PJ anastomoses after CP were comparable in terms of morbidity rates. However, a PJ anastomosis appeared to fit better for patients with high-risk fistula scores. Thus, a personalized, patient-adapted technique for the distal pancreatic stump anastomosis with the jejunum after CP should be considered. At the same time, future research should explore gastric anastomoses' emerging role.