Pancreas-Preserving Approach to “Paraduodenal Pancreatitis” Treatment: Why, When, and How? Experience of Treatment of 62 Patients with Duodenal Dystrophy

Background. The term “paraduodenal pancreatitis” (PP) was proposed as a synonym for duodenal dystrophy (DD) and groove pancreatitis, but it is still unclear what organ PP originates from and how to treat it properly. Objective. To assess the results of different types of treatment for PP. Method. Prospective analysis of 62 cases of PP (2004–2013) with histopathology of 40 specimens was performed; clinical presentation was assessed and the results of treatment were recorded.  Results. Preoperative diagnosis was correct in all the cases except one (1.9%). Patients presented with abdominal pain (100%), weight loss (76%), vomiting (30%), and jaundice (18%). CT, MRI, and endoUS were the most useful diagnostic modalities. Ten patients were treated conservatively, 24 underwent pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD), pancreatico- and cystoenterostomies (8), Nakao procedures (5), duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resections (5), and 10 pancreas-preserving duodenal resections (PPDR) without mortality. Full pain control was achieved after PPRDs in 83%, after PDs in 85%, and after PPPH resections and draining procedures in 18% of cases. Diabetes mellitus developed thrice after PD. Conclusions. PD is the main surgical option for PP treatment at present; early diagnosis makes PPDR the treatment of choice for PP; efficacy of PPDR for DD treatment provides proof that so-called PP is an entity of duodenal, but not “paraduodenal,” origin

Percutaneous Radio-frequency Assisted Liver Partition with Portal vein embolization in Staged liver resection (PRALPPS) in patients with perihilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: evaluation of short-term results

Objective. To estimate the short-term results of modified variant of ALPPS (PRALPPS) in patients with perihilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Material and methods. Procedure was indicated for future liver remnant <40%.Results. PRALPPS was applied in 13 patients and completed in 10 patients. Degree of hypertrophy and kinetic growth rate were 48 and 4.3%/day respectively. Major morbidity (>II) after the stage 1 and 2 was presented in 3 (only IIIa) and 7 patients, respectively.Conclusion. PRALPPS may be considered as an effective and safe procedure in patients with perihilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma