Search

Background: Post‐pancreaticoduodenectomy haemorrhage is a potentially life‐threatening complication. Delay in the detection and subsequent management of complications contribute significantly to post‐operative mortality and morbidity associated with pancreaticoduodenectomy. Methods: All patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy at an Australian‐based tertiary referral center between 2017 and 2022 were reviewed retrospectively. We identified those patients who suffered a post‐pancreaticoduodenectomy haemorrhage and further analysed those patients who had their post‐pancreaticoduodenectomy haemorrhage identified on repeated CT imaging performed within 24 h of their previous CT scan. Results: A total of 232 pancreaticoduodenectomies were identified for analysis during the study period, of which 23 patients (9.9%) suffered a post‐pancreaticoduodenectomy haemorrhage. We present four patients who had their post‐pancreaticoduodenectomy haemorrhage identified on repeat CT scan in the setting of a recent (within 24 h) CT scan which showed no evidence of active haemorrhage or pseudoaneurysm formation. All patients received prompt and definitive endovascular management through stent insertion or coil embolization resulting in successful cessation of bleeding. Three patients made an uncomplicated recovery thereafter. Unfortunately, one patient died as a complication of the bleed despite early and definitive endovascular intervention. Conclusion: Our study highlights the importance of having a low threshold for repeated CT imaging in the post‐pancreaticoduodenectomy setting, particularly when there remains a high index of suspicion clinically for a post‐operative complication, even in the context of previous benign imaging. Given the complexity of pancreaticoduodenectomy, we believe early detection with liberal imaging allows the best chance at successfully managing the morbidity and mortality associated in the post‐pancreaticoduodenectomy setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advances in technology and techniques have allowed for robotic distal pancreatectomies to be readily performed in patients at high volume centres. This study describes the experience of a single surgeon during the learning curve and transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in Australia, a traditionally low volume pancreatic surgery country. Methods: All patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy at an Australian-based tertiary referral centre between 2010 and 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic, clinicopathologic and survival data were analysed to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes between patients who underwent open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomies. Results: A total of 178 distal pancreatectomies were identified for analysis during the study period. Ninety-one open distal pancreatectomies (ODP), 48 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP), and 39 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDP) were performed. Robotic distal pancreatectomy was non-inferior with respect to perioperative outcomes and yielded statistically non-significant advantages over LDP and ODP. Conclusion: RDP is feasible and can be performed safely in well-selected patients during the learning phase at large pancreatic centres in a traditionally low-volume country like Australia. Referral to large pancreatic centres where access to the robotic platform and surgeon experience is not a barrier, and where a robust multidisciplinary team meeting can take place, remains pivotal in the introduction and transition toward the robotic approach for management of patients with pancreatic body or tail lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The early and accurate diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is vital for improving the efficacy of therapeutic interventions and to provide patients with the best chance of survival. While endoscopic ultrasound‐fine needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) has been demonstrated to be a reliable and accurate diagnostic tool for solid pancreatic neoplasms, the ongoing management of patients with a high clinical suspicion for malignancy but with a negative EUS‐FNA biopsy result can prove a challenge. Methods: We describe five patients from a single centre who presented for further work‐up of a pancreatic mass and/or imaging features concerning for a periampullary malignancy. Results: All patients had at least one EUS‐FNA biopsy performed which returned no malignant cells on cytology. Despite these negative cytology results, all patients underwent further invasive investigation through upfront resection (pancreaticoduodenectomy) or extra‐pancreatic biopsy (laparoscopic biopsy of peritoneal nodule) due to worrisome features on imaging, biochemical factors and clinical presentation culminating in a high degree of suspicion for malignancy. The final tissue histopathological diagnosis in all patients was pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Conclusion: This case series highlights the important clinical findings, imaging and biochemical features which need to be considered in patients who have high suspicion for malignancy despite having a negative EUS‐FNA cytology result. In these patients with a high index of suspicion, surgical intervention through an upfront resection or further invasive investigation should not be delayed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]