Comparative Study
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Posterior Superior Mesenteric Artery (SMA) First Approach vs. Standard Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Patients with Resectable Periampullary Cancers: a Prospective Comparison Focusing on Circumferential Resection Margins.

BACKGROUND: The 'SMA-first' (P-SMA) pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) allows dissection directly on the right lateral aspect of superior mesenteric artery (SMA) which may decrease circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity. This comparative study between standard PD (sPD) and P-SMA approach was planned focusing on CRM involvement.

METHODS: This was a prospective study comparing consecutive patients with resectable periampullary cancers (PACA) undergoing PD using the standard or P-SMA approach. The perioperative outcomes and the CRM positivity rates (specimens analysed according to the standardized Leeds pathology protocol (LEEPP)) were compared.

RESULTS: Overall, 39 patients (28 men; mean age 54 years; sPD 21, P-SMA 18) were included. Both groups were comparable with regard to demographic/tumour characteristics and perioperative outcomes. The P-SMA technique was significantly faster (321.1 ± 54.0 vs. 357.6 ± 55.8 min; p = 0.05). Though the mean tumour size (2.2 vs. 2.1 cm; p = 0.84) and T stage (T2 and T3) distribution were similar in both groups, lymph node yield was significantly higher in the P-SMA group (10.7 vs. 5.95; p = 0.001; mean 8 (2-21)). Though CRM positivity (margin <1 mm) occurred in 8 (21.1%), we did not find the P-SMA PD to yield significantly lower CRM positivity rates compared to the sPD (3/17 (17.6%) vs. 5/21(23.8%); p = 0.71). At a median follow-up of 28 months, fewer patients in the P-SMA PD group developed recurrence (2/15 vs. 5/19; p = 0.3) or died (3/15 vs. 7/19; p = 0.19), though this difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resectable PACA, P-SMA PD was significantly faster and yielded higher lymph node counts in the specimen but did not lower the rate of CRM positivity as determined by the LEEPP.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app