http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Hwee Leong Tan,Ek Khoon Tan,Jin Yao Teo,Juinn Huar Kam,Ser Yee Lee,Peng Chung Cheow,Prema Raj Jeyaraj,Pierce K. Chow,Alexander Y. Chung,London L. Ooi,Chung Yip Chan,Brian K. P. Goh 한국간담췌외과학회 2019 Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery Vol.23 No.3
Backgrounds/Aims: Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPPN) is typically seen in young healthy females who would likely benefit from minimally-invasive pancreatectomy (MIP). A few comparative studies have suggested that MIP is associated with favorable outcomes when compared to the open approach for SPPN. This study aims to mitigate potential selection bias by performing a matched case-control study comparing MIP vs open pancreatectomy (OP) for SPPN. Methods: We performed a single-institution retrospective electronic chart review of all patients who underwent surgery for pathologically confirmed SPPN between 2000 and 2017. A 2:1 matched comparison using age, gender, tumor size and the type of pancreatectomy was performed between OP and MIP. Results: A total of 40 patients with a median age of 40.3 years (range 16.5-64.4) and female sex predominance (n=34, 85.0%) underwent surgery during the study period. Nine patients underwent MIP. Matched comparison between 18 OP and 9 MIP demonstrated that MIP was associated with a longer median operating time (305 vs 180 min, p=0.046) and shorter median postoperative stay (6 vs 9 days, p=0.015). There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion requirements, postoperative morbidity (including postoperative pancreatic fistula) and mortality, resection margins, lymph node yield and long-term survival. Conclusions: MIP is a safe and viable option in the management of SPPN with the benefit of a shorter postoperative length of stay at the expense of a longer operation time. There was no significant difference in oncologic outcomes between both groups of patients.
Yuxin Guo,Ek-Khoon Tan,Nicholas L. Syn,Thinesh-Lee Krishnamoorthy,Chee-Kiat Tan,Reina Lim,Ser-Yee Lee,Chung-Yip Chan,Peng-Chung Cheow,Alexander Y. F. Chung,Prema Raj Jeyaraj,Brian K. P. Goh 한국간담췌외과학회 2019 Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery Vol.23 No.4
Backgrounds/Aims: Repeat liver resection (RLR) and salvage liver transplantation (SLT) are viable treatment options for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). With possibly superior survival outcomes than RLR, SLT is however, limited by liver graft availability and poses increased perioperative morbidity. In this study, we seek to compare the outcomes of RLR and SLT for patients with recurrent HCC. Methods: Between 1999 and 2018, 94 and 16 consecutive patients who underwent RLR and SLT respectively were identified. Further retrospective subgroup analysis was conducted, comparing 16 RLR with 16 SLT patients via propensity-score matching. Results: After propensity-score adjusted analyses, SLT demonstrated inferior short-term perioperative outcomes than RLR, with increased major morbidity (57.8% vs 5.4 %, p=0.0001), reoperations (39.1% vs 0, p<0.0001), renal insufficiency (30.1% vs 3%, p=0.0071), bleeding (19.8% vs 2.2%, p=0.0289), prolonged intensive care unit stay (median=4 vs 0 days, p<0.0001) and hospital stay (median= 19.8 vs 7.1days, p<0.001). However, SLT showed significantly lower recurrence rate (15.4% versus 70.3%, p=0.0005) and 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrences (19.4% versus 68.4%, p=0.005). Propensity-matched subgroup analysis showed concordant findings. Conclusions: While SLT offers potentially reduced risks of recurrence and trended towards improved long-term survival outcomes relative to RLR, it has poorer short-term perioperative outcomes. Patient selection is prudent amidst organ shortages to maximise allocated resources and optimise patient outcomes.
Outcomes of salvage liver transplant for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma
Yuxin Guo,Ek-Khoon Tan,Thinesh-Lee Krishnamoorthy,Chee-Kiat Tan,Ban-Hock Tan,Thuan-Tong Tan,Ser-Yee Lee,Chung-Yip Chan,Peng-Chung Cheow,Alexander Y. F. Chung,Prema Raj Jeyaraj,Brian K. P. Goh 한국간담췌외과학회 2019 Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery Vol.23 No.1
Backgrounds/Aims: Salvage liver transplantation (SLT) is a therapeutic strategy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, it remains controversial with compromised survival outcomes and increased perioperative morbidity compared to primary liver transplant (PLT). In the present work, we describe our institution’s experience on SLT by comparing outcomes of SLT to PLT for HCCs. Methods: Retrospective analysis was conducted for 49 transplant patients from 2006-2017. A comparative analysis was carried out between 14 SLT patients and 35 PLT patients. Results: SLT patients demonstrated significantly shorter time to recurrence than PLT patients (median=5.5 versus 23 months, p<0.001) with a trend towards increased perioperative major morbidity (42.9% versus 37%, p=0.711), inferior 5-year overall survival (61% versus 75%, p=0.345) and inferior 5-year recurrence-free survival (57% versus 72%, p=0.263). However, overall survival from the point of primary resection over a 10-year period showed no statistical difference between the 2 groups (SLT=60% versus PLT=61%, p=0.685). Conclusions: SLT is a viable treatment strategy for HCCs. However, it exhibited poorer short-term perioperative and oncologic outcomes than PLT. SLT requires better patient selection with liver donor grafts for optimization of resource allocation in this era of organ shortage. Considering the worldwide shortages in liver grafts, it is hypothesized that optimization of a salvage transplant strategy may improve resource allocation and reap optimal patient outcomes.
A single institution experience with robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies
Shi Qing Lee,Tousif Kabir,Ye-Xin Koh,Jin-Yao Teo,Ser-Yee Lee,Juinn-Huar Kam,Peng-Chung Cheow,Prema Raj Jeyaraj,Pierce K. H. Chow,London L. Ooi,Alexander Y. F. Chung,Chung-Yip Chan,Brian K. P. Goh 한국간담췌외과학회 2020 Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery Vol.24 No.3
Backgrounds/Aims: This study aims to describe our experience with minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomies, with emphasis on the comparison between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). Methods: Retrospective review of 102 consecutive RDP and LDP from 2006 to 2019 was performed. Results: There were 27 and 75 patients who underwent RDP and LDP, respectively. There were 12 (11.8%) open conversions and 16 (15.7%) patients had major (>grade 2) morbidities. Patients who underwent RDP had significantly higher rates of splenic preservation (44.4% vs. 13.3%, p=0.002), higher rates of splenic-vessel preservation (40.7% vs. 9.3%, p=0.001), higher median difficulty score (5 vs. 3, p=0.002) but longer operation time (385 vs. 245 minutes, p<0.001). The rate of open conversion tended to be lower with RDP (3.7% vs. 14.7%, p=0.175). Conclusions: In our institution practice, both RDP and LDP were safe and effective. The use of RDP appeared to be complementary to LDP, allowing us to perform more difficult procedures with comparable postoperative outcomes.