Emergent pancreaticoduodenectomy is a life-saving procedure in certain clinical scenarios when all the conservative treatment fails. The indications can be limited into perforation and bleeding. To clarify the impact of etiology on surgical outcomes of emergent pancreaticoduodenectomy for non-trauma, we analyzed our patients and performed a literature review. We reviewed 931 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies performed at our institute between January 2001 and July 2015. Patients with emergent pancreaticoduodenectomy for non-trauma etiologies were enrolled, whereas those who suffered from caustic injuries were excluded. The keywords “emergent/emergency” and “pancreaticoduodenectomy/pancreatoduodenectomy” were applied in a literature search. The universally available data for all the enrolled patients including etiology, surgical complications, outcomes, and hospital stays were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate logistic analysis for the contributing factors to surgical mortality were performed. Six out of 931 (0.6%) registered pancreaticoduodenectomies matched our criteria of inclusion. The literature review obtained 4 series and 7 case reports, which when combined with our patients yielded a cohort of 31 emergent pancreaticoduodenectomies with 13 cases of perforation and 18 of bleeding. The rate of emergent pancreaticoduodenectomy for non-traumatic etiologies is similar between the present study and the other 3 series, ranging from 0.3 to 3%. The overall surgical complication rate was 83.9%. The rate of surgical mortality is significantly higher than in elective pancreaticoduodenectomy by propensity score matching with age and gender (19.4 versus 3.2%, P = 0.015). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression disclosed that etiology is the only preoperative risk factor for surgical mortality (perforation versus bleeding; odds ratio = 39.494, P = 0.031). Emergent pancreaticoduodenectomy remains a rare operation. Surgical morbidity and mortality are higher than with elective pancreaticoduodenectomy among different reported series. By sorting the preoperative etiologies into two groups, perforation carries a higher risk of surgical mortality than bleeding.

Background and Objectives: In peritoneal dialysis (PD) therapy, intra-abdominal adhesions (IAAs) can cause catheter insertion failure, poor dialysis function, and decreased PD adequacy. Unfortunately, IAAs are not readily visible to currently available imaging methods. The laparoscopic approach for inserting PD catheters enables direct visualization of IAAs and simultaneously performs adhesiolysis. However, a limited number of studies have investigated the benefit/risk profile of laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients receiving PD catheter placement. This retrospective study aimed to address this issue. Materials and Methods: This study enrolled 440 patients who received laparoscopic PD catheter insertion at our hospital between January 2013 and May 2020. Adhesiolysis was performed in all cases with IAA identified via laparoscopy. We retrospectively reviewed data, including clinical characteristics, operative details, and PD-related clinical outcomes. Results: These patients were classified into the adhesiolysis group (n = 47) and the non-IAA group (n = 393). The clinical characteristics and operative details had no remarkable between-group differences, except the percentage of prior abdominal operation history was higher and the median operative time was longer in the adhesiolysis group. PD-related clinical outcomes, including incidence rate of mechanical obstruction, PD adequacy (Kt/V urea and weekly creatinine clearance), and overall catheter survival, were all comparable between the adhesiolysis and non-IAA groups. None of the patients in the adhesiolysis group suffered adhesiolysis-related complications. Conclusions: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with IAA confers clinical benefits in achieving PD-related outcomes comparable to those without IAA. It is a safe and reasonable approach. Our findings provide new evidence to support the benefits of this laparoscopic approach, especially in patients with a risk of IAAs.

Esophagectomy remains the standard treatment for esophageal cancer or esophagogastric junction cancer. The stomach, or the gastric conduit, is currently the most commonly used substitute for reconstruction instead of the jejunum or the colon. Preservation of the right gastric and the right gastroepiploic vessels is a vital step to maintain an adequate perfusion of the gastric conduit. Compromise of these vessels, especially the right gastroepiploic artery, might result in ischemia or necrosis of the conduit. Replacement of the gastric conduit with jejunal or colonic interposition is reported when a devastating accident occurs; however, the latter procedure requires a more extensive dissection and multiple anastomosis. A 61-year-old male with a lower third esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (cT3N1 M0) who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation with a partial response. He underwent esophagectomy with a gastric conduit reconstruction. However, the right gastroepiploic artery was accidentally transected during harvesting the gastric conduit, and the complication was identified during the pull-up phase. An end-to-end primary anastomosis was performed by the plastic surgeon under microscopy, and perfusion of the conduit was evaluated by the ICG scope, which revealed adequate vascularization of the whole conduit. We continued the reconstruction with the revascularized gastric conduit according to the perfusion test result. Although the patient developed minor postoperative leakage of the esophagogastrostomy, it was controlled with conservative drainage and antibiotic administration. Computed tomography also demonstrated fully enhanced gastric conduit. The patient resumed oral intake smoothly later without complications and was discharged at postoperative day 43. Although the incidence of vascular compromise during harvesting of the gastric conduit is rare, the risk of conduit ischemia is worrisome whenever it happens. Regarding to our presented case, with the prompt identification of the injury, expertized vascular reconstruction, and a practical intraoperative evaluation of the perfusion, a restored gastric conduit could be applied for reconstruction instead of converting to more complicated procedures.

Background Submucosal tumors (SMTs) of different etiologies exist from esophagus to rectum. Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) is one of the known difficult locations for tumor resection. Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a well-established approach for gastrointestinal surgery, there is no consensus that MIS for resection of SMTs around EGJ is superior to laparotomy. We tried to clarify the factors that determine the surgeons' choices between these two approaches. Methods From January 2002 to June 2016, 909 patients with SMTs underwent resection in our department. Among them, 119 patients (13%) had SMTs around EGJ were enrolled by retrospective review. The clinicopathological features and tumor-related parameters were reviewed and analyzed. Results The cohort was stratified into three groups according to the extent of gastrectomy and surgical approaches. The three groups are as following: major gastrectomy (n = 13), minor gastrectomy by laparotomy (n = 51), and minor gastrectomy with MIS (n = 55). The average tumor size was significantly larger in the major gastrectomy group than in the two minor gastrectomy groups; however, there was no difference between the two minor gastrectomy groups (5.33 cm, 4.07 cm, and 3.69 cm, respectively). The minor gastrectomy with MIS required least hospital stay and operation duration also. We re-stratify the two minor gastrectomy groups (n = 106) according to the orientation of SMTs around the EGJ into 4 zones. Most of SMTs located on the greater curvature side of the EGJ were resected with MIS (82% versus 18%), whereas SMTs in the other zones were resected more often by laparotomy (59% versus 41%). There was no surgical mortality within the cohort, while minor gastrectomy with MIS yielded least number of leakages among the three groups. Conclusions For SMTs around the EGJ, larger tumors (diameter of more than 5 cm) are more likely to be resected with major gastrectomy. To resect SMTs around the EGJ in a wedge-like (minor gastrectomy) fashion, tumors located other than the greater curvature side were more often resected by laparotomy. However, MIS yielded acceptable safety and surgical outcomes compared to conventional laparotomy for SMTs around the EGJ of the same size.

Since excessive alcohol consumption is a shared risk factor for esophageal cancer and liver fibrosis, it is possible that patients with esophageal cancer may develop unknown liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. We applied preoperative transient elastography (TE) to patients without recorded cirrhosis undergoing esophagectomy to clarify the validity in predicting postesophagectomy hepatic failure. The cohort consisted of 107 patients who received TE before esophagectomy between June 2018 and December 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the fibrosis score yielded by preoperative TE (mild group: 0~2, n = 92; severe group: 3~4, n = 15). There was no significant difference in demographic data nor surgical variables between the two groups. None of the cohort encountered hepatic failure, yet the severe fibrosis group had a significantly higher rate of pleural effusion (40.0% versus 15.2%, p = 0.03). The areas under the curve (AUCs) of TE in predicting postoperative complications and 180-day mortality were 0.60 (95% CI: 0.46–0.74) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.51–0.83), respectively. In conclusion, stratification of patients with esophageal cancer who had liver fibrosis by preoperative TE demonstrates significant validity in predicting postoperative pleural effusions. Recruitment of noncirrhotic patients with higher TE scores is warranted to examine its power in other parameters.

Introduction: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) has devastating outcomes owing to its advanced stage at diagnosis and high recurrence after hepatectomy. There is no preferred treatment for recurrent ICC. We retrospectively reviewed our patients who underwent repeated operations for recurrent ICCs based on their different indications to appraise the outcomes. Methods: In all, 160 out of 216 patients with ICC (71.4%) experienced recurrence after curative resection from 1977 to 2014. The patterns of recurrence were categorized according to the locations and numbers of recurrent tumors. Results: Patients with merely intrahepatic recurrence (n = 38) had superior overall survival (OS) compared with those with beyond intrahepatic recurrence (p < 0.0001). Twenty-seven out of 160 patients (16.8%) underwent repeat hepatectomy or/with metastatectomy for recurrence and had superior OS when compared to the remaining 133 patients who received nonoperative treatment/palliation (85.6 months versus 20.9 months, p < 0.001). Furthermore, patients suitable for repeat hepatectomy in the intrahepatic recurrent group (n = 12) had superior post-recurrence overall survival (PROS) than the remaining 26 patients receiving nonoperative treatment (61.6 months versus 14.7 months, p < 0.05). Conclusion: Liver is the most commonly involved site of recurrent ICC. However, merely intrahepatic recurrence may have a favorable prognosis compared to recurrence involving other sites. Aggressive hepatectomy may provide a survival benefit in selected patients.