不同手术方法对边缘可切除胰头癌患者发病率和死亡率的影响

Edin Hodzic, Sadat Pusina, Mirhan Salibasic, Ajdin Rovcanin, Emsad Halilovic, Naida Herenda
{"title":"不同手术方法对边缘可切除胰头癌患者发病率和死亡率的影响","authors":"Edin Hodzic, Sadat Pusina, Mirhan Salibasic, Ajdin Rovcanin, Emsad Halilovic, Naida Herenda","doi":"10.5455/medarh.2024.78.29-32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Radical surgical resection for pancreatic head carcinoma offers a chance for cure but unfortunately is only available to a limited number of patients. For a significant number of patients, palliative surgery remains the only option. The question of the most effective approach for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic head carcinoma (BRPHC) remains unresolved. Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the morbidity and mortality following R1 duodenocephalic pancreatectomy and double palliative bypass to explore the most optimal surgical treatment for patients with BRPHC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our retrospective cohort study included 64 patients with BRPHC who underwent surgery from 2012 to 2019, with postoperative follow-up for three years. Morbidity and mortality parameters were examined based on the type of surgical treatment: R1 duodenocephalic pancreatectomy or palliative double bypass. Chi-square test, univariate regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used as basic statistical methods in the analysis of the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients undergoing R1 duodenocephalic pancreatectomy had a 3.69 times higher risk of developing biliary leak (p=0.039; 95%CI:1.066, 1.181) and shorter survival compared to those undergoing palliative double bypass (p=0.022). No statistically significant association was found between the type of surgical procedure and other postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study suggests that the double palliative bypass procedure may be a better option than R1 resection for patients with BRPHC.</p>","PeriodicalId":94135,"journal":{"name":"Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)","volume":"78 1","pages":"29-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10928687/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Different Surgical Approaches on Morbidity and Mortality in Patients with Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Head Carcinoma.\",\"authors\":\"Edin Hodzic, Sadat Pusina, Mirhan Salibasic, Ajdin Rovcanin, Emsad Halilovic, Naida Herenda\",\"doi\":\"10.5455/medarh.2024.78.29-32\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Radical surgical resection for pancreatic head carcinoma offers a chance for cure but unfortunately is only available to a limited number of patients. For a significant number of patients, palliative surgery remains the only option. The question of the most effective approach for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic head carcinoma (BRPHC) remains unresolved. Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the morbidity and mortality following R1 duodenocephalic pancreatectomy and double palliative bypass to explore the most optimal surgical treatment for patients with BRPHC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our retrospective cohort study included 64 patients with BRPHC who underwent surgery from 2012 to 2019, with postoperative follow-up for three years. Morbidity and mortality parameters were examined based on the type of surgical treatment: R1 duodenocephalic pancreatectomy or palliative double bypass. Chi-square test, univariate regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used as basic statistical methods in the analysis of the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients undergoing R1 duodenocephalic pancreatectomy had a 3.69 times higher risk of developing biliary leak (p=0.039; 95%CI:1.066, 1.181) and shorter survival compared to those undergoing palliative double bypass (p=0.022). No statistically significant association was found between the type of surgical procedure and other postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study suggests that the double palliative bypass procedure may be a better option than R1 resection for patients with BRPHC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"29-32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10928687/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2024.78.29-32\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2024.78.29-32","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:胰头癌的根治性手术切除为治愈提供了机会,但遗憾的是,只有少数患者可以接受这种手术。对于相当多的患者来说,姑息手术仍是唯一的选择。对于边缘可切除胰头癌(BRPHC)患者,最有效的方法是什么,这个问题仍未解决。研究目的本研究旨在比较R1十二指肠胰头切除术和双姑息性分流术的发病率和死亡率,以探索BRPHC患者的最佳手术治疗方法:我们的回顾性队列研究纳入了2012年至2019年期间接受手术的64例BRPHC患者,术后随访三年。根据手术治疗类型对发病率和死亡率参数进行了研究:R1十二指肠胰腺切除术或姑息性双分流术。结果分析采用了卡普兰-梅耶分析、单变量回归和卡普兰-梅耶检验等基本统计方法:结果:与接受姑息性双分流术的患者相比,接受R1十二指肠胰腺切除术的患者发生胆漏的风险高出3.69倍(P=0.039;95%CI:1.066,1.181),生存期也更短(P=0.022)。手术类型与其他术后并发症之间没有统计学意义:我们的研究表明,对于BRPHC患者来说,双姑息性分流术可能是比R1切除术更好的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of Different Surgical Approaches on Morbidity and Mortality in Patients with Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Head Carcinoma.

Background: Radical surgical resection for pancreatic head carcinoma offers a chance for cure but unfortunately is only available to a limited number of patients. For a significant number of patients, palliative surgery remains the only option. The question of the most effective approach for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic head carcinoma (BRPHC) remains unresolved. Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the morbidity and mortality following R1 duodenocephalic pancreatectomy and double palliative bypass to explore the most optimal surgical treatment for patients with BRPHC.

Methods: Our retrospective cohort study included 64 patients with BRPHC who underwent surgery from 2012 to 2019, with postoperative follow-up for three years. Morbidity and mortality parameters were examined based on the type of surgical treatment: R1 duodenocephalic pancreatectomy or palliative double bypass. Chi-square test, univariate regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used as basic statistical methods in the analysis of the results.

Results: Patients undergoing R1 duodenocephalic pancreatectomy had a 3.69 times higher risk of developing biliary leak (p=0.039; 95%CI:1.066, 1.181) and shorter survival compared to those undergoing palliative double bypass (p=0.022). No statistically significant association was found between the type of surgical procedure and other postoperative complications.

Conclusion: Our study suggests that the double palliative bypass procedure may be a better option than R1 resection for patients with BRPHC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信