Browsing by Author "Ghadimi, Michael"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Impact of Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy with Low Negative Pressure for Esophageal Perforations and Postoperative Anastomotic Esophageal Leaks
    (Karger, 2020) Jung, Carlo Felix Maria; Müller-Dornieden, Annegret; Gaedcke, Jochen; Kunsch, Steffen; Gromski, Mark A.; Biggemann, Lorenz; Hosseini, Ali Seif Amir; Ghadimi, Michael; Ellenrieder, Volker; Wedi, Edris; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Introduction: Management of esophageal anastomotic leaks (AL) and esophageal perforations (EP) remains difficult and often requires an interdisciplinary treatment modality. For primary endoscopic management, self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement is often considered first-line therapy. Recently, endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has emerged as an alternative or adjunct for management of these conditions. So far, data for EVT in the upper gastrointestinal-tract is restricted to single centre, non-randomized trials. No studies on optimal negative pressure application during EVT exist. The aim of our study is to describe our centre’s experience with low negative pressure (LNP) EVT for these indications over the past 5-years. Patients and Methods: Between January 2014 and December 2018, 30 patients were endoscopically treated for AL (n = 23) or EP (n = 7). All patients were primarily treated with EVT and LNP between –20 and –50 mm Hg. Additional endoscopic treatment was added when EVT failed. Procedural and peri-procedural data, as well as clinical outcomes including morbidity and mortality, were analysed. Results: Clinical successful endoscopic treatment of EP and AL was achieved in 83.3% (n = 25/30), with 73.3% success using EVT alone (n = 22/30). Mean treatment duration until leak closure was 16.1 days (range 2–58 days). Additional treatment modalities for complete leak resolution was necessary in 10% (n = 3/30), including SEMS placement and fibrin glue injection. Mean hospital stay for patients with EP was shorter with 33.7 days compared to AL with 54.4 days (p = 0.08). Estimated preoperative 10-year overall survival (Charlson comorbidity score) was 39.4% in patients with AL and 59.9% in patients with EP (p = 0.26). A mean of 5.1 EVT changes (range 1–12) was needed in EP and 3.6 changes (range 1–13) in AL to achieve complete closure, switch to other treatment modality, or reach endoscopic failure (p = 0.38). Conclusion: LNP EVT enables effective minimally – invasive endoluminal leak closure from anastomotic esophageal leaks and EP in high-morbid patients. In this study, EVT was combined with other endoscopic treatment options such as SEMS placement or fibrin glue injection in order to achieve leak or perforation closure in the vast majority of patients (83.3%). Low aspiration pressures led to slower but still sufficient clinical results.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Surgical Outcome After Distal Pancreatectomy With and Without Portomesenteric Venous Resection in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Transatlantic Evaluation of Patients in North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands (GAPASURG)
    (Springer, 2024) Stoop, Thomas F.; Augustinus, Simone; Björnsson, Bergthor; Tingstedt, Bobby; Andersson, Bodil; Wolfgang, Christopher L.; Werner, Jens; Johansen, Karin; Stommel, Martijn W. J.; Katz, Matthew H. G.; Ghadimi, Michael; House, Michael G.; Ghorbani, Poya; Molenaar, I. Quintus; de Wilde, Roeland F.; Mieog, J. Sven D.; Keck, Tobias; Wellner, Ulrich F.; Uhl, Waldemar; Besselink, Marc G.; Pitt, Henry A.; Del Chiaro, Marco; Global Audits on Pancreatic Surgery Group (GAPASURG); Surgery, School of Medicine
    Background: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP ± PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit. Results: Overall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality. Conclusions: PVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality.