In vivo isolated kidney perfusion with tumour necrosis factor α (TNF-α) in tumour-bearing rats

Isolated perfusion of the extremities with high-dose tumour necrosis factor α (TNF-α) plus melphalan leads to dramatic tumour response in patients with irresectable soft tissue sarcoma or multiple melanoma in transit metastases. We developed in vivo isolated organ perfusion models to determine whether similar tumour responses in solid organ tumours can be obtained with this regimen. Here, we describe the technique of isolated kidney perfusion. We studied the feasibility of a perfusion with TNF-α and assessed its anti-tumour effects in tumour models differing in tumour vasculature. The maximal tolerated dose (MTD) proved to be only 1 μg TNF-α. Higher doses appeared to induce renal failure and a secondary cytokine release with fatal respiratory and septic shock-like symptoms. In vitro, the combination of TNF-α and melphalan did not result in a synergistic growth-inhibiting effect on CC 531 colon adenocarcinoma cells, whereas an additive effect was observed on osteosarcoma ROS-1 cells. In vivo isolated kidney perfusion, with TNF-α alone or in combination with melphalan, did not result in a significant anti-tumour response in either tumour model in a subrenal capsule assay. We conclude that, because of the susceptibility of the kidney to perfusion with TNF-α, the minimal threshold concentration of TNF-α to exert its anti-tumour effects was not reached. The applicability of TNF-α in isolated kidney perfusion for human tumours seems, therefore, questionable. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

Minimally invasive liver surgery—whither else but straight ahead?

Overwhelming clinical evidence supports the use of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), at least in case of minor hepatectomy, given its benefits in perioperative outcome measures and postoperative recovery (1,2). Conceptually, these findings make sense in resections where the volume of the liver remnant is large enough to not expect significant post-hepatectomy liver insufficiency and reconvalescence is mostly dependent on the surgical incision

Minimally invasive liver surgery—whither else but straight ahead?

Overwhelming clinical evidence supports the use of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), at least in case of minor hepatectomy, given its benefits in perioperative outcome measures and postoperative recovery (1,2). Conceptually, these findings make sense in resections where the volume of the liver remnant is large enough to not expect significant post-hepatectomy liver insufficiency and reconvalescence is mostly dependent on the surgical incision

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy for a solid pseudopapillary tumor in a ten-year-old child

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy (Whipple resection) in children is feasible though rarely indicated. In several pediatric malignancies of the pancreas, however, it may be the only curative strategy [1]. With the emergence of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy as at least a clinically equivalent alternative to open surgery [2], it remains to be determined whether the pediatric population may potentially benefit from this minimally invasive procedure. Here we present, for the first time, a video of setup and surgical technique of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy in a child. METHODS: A 10-year-old girl presented with complaints of fullness and abdominal pain in the upper quadrants. Investigations including a diffusion-weighted, pancreatic MR scan suggested the diagnosis of solid pseudopapillary tumor (Frantz's tumor). The patient was considered for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. RESULTS: After anesthesia, the patient was placed supine on a split-leg table. Trocar placement was adjusted to accommodate the child's length and body weight, according to pre-operatively calculated positions that would allow for maximum working space and minimize inadvertent collision between the robotic arms. The da Vinci Si surgical robot was positioned in-line towards the surgical target and all four robotic arms were docked, while two additional laparoscopic ports were placed for tableside assistance. After standard pancreatoduodenectomy, a conventional loop reconstruction was performed including an end-to-side pancreaticojejunostomy with duct-to-mucosa technique and stapled side-to-side gastrojejunostomy. We suggest that in this patient group, pylorus preserving pancreatoduodenectomy with end-to-side duodenojejunostomy may be a suitable alternative. Postoperative recovery was complicated by delayed gastric emptying but otherwise unremarkable. Hospital length of stay was 12 days. Final pathology demonstrated a solid pseudopapillary tumor with negative surgical margins. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the feasibility of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy in children. Essential elements of this procedure are a well-running robotic pancreatic surgery program as well as careful preoperative port placement planning

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy for a solid pseudopapillary tumor in a ten-year-old child

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy (Whipple resection) in children is feasible though rarely indicated. In several pediatric malignancies of the pancreas, however, it may be the only curative strategy [1]. With the emergence of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy as at least a clinically equivalent alternative to open surgery [2], it remains to be determined whether the pediatric population may potentially benefit from this minimally invasive procedure. Here we present, for the first time, a video of setup and surgical technique of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy in a child. METHODS: A 10-year-old girl presented with complaints of fullness and abdominal pain in the upper quadrants. Investigations including a diffusion-weighted, pancreatic MR scan suggested the diagnosis of solid pseudopapillary tumor (Frantz's tumor). The patient was considered for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. RESULTS: After anesthesia, the patient was placed supine on a split-leg table. Trocar placement was adjusted to accommodate the child's length and body weight, according to pre-operatively calculated positions that would allow for maximum working space and minimize inadvertent collision between the robotic arms. The da Vinci Si surgical robot was positioned in-line towards the surgical target and all four robotic arms were docked, while two additional laparoscopic ports were placed for tableside assistance. After standard pancreatoduodenectomy, a conventional loop reconstruction was performed including an end-to-side pancreaticojejunostomy with duct-to-mucosa technique and stapled side-to-side gastrojejunostomy. We suggest that in this patient group, pylorus preserving pancreatoduodenectomy with end-to-side duodenojejunostomy may be a suitable alternative. Postoperative recovery was complicated by delayed gastric emptying but otherwise unremarkable. Hospital length of stay was 12 days. Final pathology demonstrated a solid pseudopapillary tumor with negative surgical margins. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the feasibility of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy in children. Essential elements of this procedure are a well-running robotic pancreatic surgery program as well as careful preoperative port placement planning