Search

Background: Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and distal cholangiocarcinoma arise from the same tissue but require different surgical treatment methods. It remains unclear whether these cholangiocarcinoma types have different outcomes, prognostic factors, and/or recurrence patterns.Methods: This retrospective study evaluated patients who underwent curative-intent resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma or distal cholangiocarcinoma at a tertiary academic hospital during 2000–2015. Survival and prognostic factors were identified using Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses.Results: The 90-day mortality rates were 0% for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (36 patients) and 4% for distal cholangiocarcinoma (47 patients). There were no significant differences between perihilar cholangiocarcinoma or distal cholangiocarcinoma in median overall survival (30.9 vs 40.4 months) or median disease-free survival (14.2 vs 21.4 months). Among perihilar cholangiocarcinoma patients, age > 65 years was an independent predictor of poorer overall survival (hazard ratio: 2.45, 95% confidence interval: 1.07–5.64), while requiring bile duct re-resection was an independent predictor of disease-free survival (hazard ratio: 2.76, 95% confidence interval: 1.01–7.51). Among distal cholangiocarcinoma patients, a pN1 category independently predicted poorer overall survival (hazard ratio: 3.40, 95% confidence interval: 1.14–10.11), while preoperative CA19-9 levels >30 U/mL (hazard ratio: 2.51, 95% confidence interval: 1.09–5.79) and pN1 category (hazard ratio: 2.51, 95% confidence interval: 1.09–5.79) predicted a shorter disease-free survival. Local recurrence was more common with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (50% of recurrences), while multiple synchronous sites were more common for distal cholangiocarcinoma (41% of recurrences).Conclusion: Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and distal cholangiocarcinoma patients have similar survival outcomes. However, local control appears to be more prognostic for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma patients, while positive lymph nodes are critical prognostic factor for distal cholangiocarcinoma patients.

Background and Aims: Severe, medically uncontrollable gastroparesis is a rare entity, which can be treated using a high-frequency gastric electric stimulator implanted surgically. Previous follow-ups have proven positive outcomes with gastric electric stimulator in patients with gastroparesis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gastric electric stimulator in patients, in whom gastroparesis could not be controlled by conservative means in our country.Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective multi-center cohort comprising all patients who had been implanted gastric electric stimulator for severe, medically refractory gastroparesis during 2007–2015 in Finland.Results: Fourteen patients underwent implantation of gastric electrical stimulator without any postoperative complications. Laparoscopic approach was used in 13 patients (93%). Prior implantation, all patients needed frequent hospitalization for parenteral feeding, 13 had severe nausea, 11 had severe vomiting, 10 had notable weight loss, and 6 had frequent abdominal pain. After operation, none of the patients required parenteral feeding, 11 patients (79%) gained median of 5.1 kg in weight (P < 0.01), and symptoms were relieved markedly in 8 and partially in 3 patients (79%). Of partial responders, two continued to experience occasional vomiting and one mild nausea. Five patients needed medication for gastroparesis after the operation. One patient did not get any relief of symptoms, but gained 6 kg in weight. No major late complications occurred.Conclusion: Gastric electrical stimulator seems to improve the nutritional status and give clear relief of the symptoms of severe, medically uncontrollable gastroparesis. Given the low number of operations, gastric electrical stimulator seems to be underused in Finland.

Objectives: Since the early 1990s, low long-term survival rates following pancreatic surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have challenged us to improve treatment. In this series, we aim to show improved survival from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma during the era of centralized pancreatic surgery.Methods: Analysis of all pancreatic resections performed at Helsinki University Hospital and survival of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients during 2000–2013 were included. Post-operative complications such as fistulas, reoperations, and mortality rates were recorded. Patient and tumor characteristics were compared with survival data.Results: Of the 853 patients undergoing pancreatic surgery, 581 (68%) were pancreaticoduodenectomies, 195 (21%) distal resections, 28 (3%) total pancreatectomies, and 49 (6%) other procedures. Mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy was 2.1%. The clinically relevant B/C fistula rate was 7% after pancreaticoduodenectomy and 13% after distal resection, and the re-operation rate was 5%. The 5- and 10-year survival rates for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were 22% and 14%; for T1-2, N0 and R0 tumors, the corresponding survival rates were 49% and 31%. Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 >75?kU/L, carcinoembryonic antigen >5?µg/L, N1, lymph-node ratio >20%, R1, and lack of adjuvant therapy were independent risk factors for decreased survival.Conclusion: After centralization of pancreatic surgery in southern Finland, we have managed to enable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients to survive markedly longer than in the early 1990s. Based on a 1.7-million population in our clinic, mortality rates are equal to those of other high-volume centers and long-term survival rates for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have now risen to some of the highest reported.

Background and Aims: The rainage (PBD) prior to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is controversial. If PBD is required, large bore self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) are thought to maintain better drainage and have fewer postoperative complications than plastic stents. The confirming evidence is scarce. The aim of the study was to compare outcomes of surgery in patients who underwent PBD with SEMS or plastic stents deployed at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).Material and Methods: This is a retrospective study of 366 patients having had PD during 2000–2009. Preceding endoscopic PBD was performed in 191 patients and nine had had percutaneous transhepatic drainage (PTD). At the time of operation, 163 patients had a plastic stent and 28 had SEMS. Due to stent exchanges, 176 plastic stents and 29 SEMS were placed in all.Results and Conclusions: The stent failure rate was 7.4% for plastic stents and 3.4% for SEMS (p= 0.697). A bilirubin level under 50 µmol/L was reached by 80% of the patients with plastic stents and by 61% of the patients with SEMS (p= 0.058). A postoperative infection complication and/or a pancreatic fistula was found in 26% while using plastic stents and in 25% using SEMS (p= 1.000). In unstented patients with biliary obstruction, the bile juice was sterile significantly more often than in endoscopically stented patients (100% vs 1%, p< 0.001). When the stented and unstented patients were compared regarding postoperative infection complications, there was no significant difference between the groups (p= 0.365). Plastic stents did not differ from SEMS regarding the stent failure rate, bilirubin level decrease, amount of bacteria in the bile juice, or postoperative complications when used for PBD. The significantly higher price of SEMS suggests their use in selected cases only.