Zhonghua yi xue za zhi = Chinese medical journal; Free China ed · 1999
Comparison of pylorus-preserving and classic pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang T Y, Shyr Y M, Su C H, Wu C W, Lui W Y
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The authors present their recent experience with the treatment of periampullary lesions to compare the surgical technique, safety and prognosis between pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) and classic pancreaticoduodenectomy (CPD).
METHODS: Prospective data from 100 patients with periampullary lesions treated with either PPPD or CPD between January, 1991, and June, 1997, were evaluated, including demographic data, surgical technique, surgical risk and prognosis.
RESULTS: There were 35 patients treated with PPPD and 65 treated with CPD. The operating time was significantly shorter in the PPPD group (9.3 +/- 0.3 hours) than in CPD (10.4 +/- 0.3 hours). The average overall blood loss was 1,275 +/- 71 ml, with no statistical difference between PPPD and CPD groups. The overall complication rate was 56%, with 54% in the PPPD group and 57% in the CPD group (p = 0.755). The overall mortality was 4%, with 0% in the PPPD group and 6.2% in CPD (p = 0.655). There was no statistical difference in survival time for overall periampullary cancers between the PPPD and CPD groups (median = 28.0 vs 26.5 months, p = 0.393). The difference in survival time was still of no significance between the PPPD and CPD groups when the periampullary cancers were further stratified into pancreatic head cancer and nonpancreatic periampullary cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity and mortality of PPPD did not exceed that of CPD, and the prognosis after PPPD was not compromised in patients with periampullary cancer. PPPD, with a shorter operating time, can be a safe and effective alternative to CPD in the treatment of periampullary lesions.
METHODS: Prospective data from 100 patients with periampullary lesions treated with either PPPD or CPD between January, 1991, and June, 1997, were evaluated, including demographic data, surgical technique, surgical risk and prognosis.
RESULTS: There were 35 patients treated with PPPD and 65 treated with CPD. The operating time was significantly shorter in the PPPD group (9.3 +/- 0.3 hours) than in CPD (10.4 +/- 0.3 hours). The average overall blood loss was 1,275 +/- 71 ml, with no statistical difference between PPPD and CPD groups. The overall complication rate was 56%, with 54% in the PPPD group and 57% in the CPD group (p = 0.755). The overall mortality was 4%, with 0% in the PPPD group and 6.2% in CPD (p = 0.655). There was no statistical difference in survival time for overall periampullary cancers between the PPPD and CPD groups (median = 28.0 vs 26.5 months, p = 0.393). The difference in survival time was still of no significance between the PPPD and CPD groups when the periampullary cancers were further stratified into pancreatic head cancer and nonpancreatic periampullary cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity and mortality of PPPD did not exceed that of CPD, and the prognosis after PPPD was not compromised in patients with periampullary cancer. PPPD, with a shorter operating time, can be a safe and effective alternative to CPD in the treatment of periampullary lesions.