Day, Ryan W.

Objectives We compared risk-adjusted short- and long-term outcomes between standard pancreaticoduodenectomy (SPD) and a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD). Methods The National Cancer Database was queried for the years 2004 to 2014 to identify patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head undergoing SPD and PPD. Margin status, lymph node yield, length of stay (LOS), 30- and 90-day mortality, and overall survival were compared. Results A total of 11,172 patients were identified, of whom 9332 (83.5%) underwent SPD and 1840 (16.5%) PPPD. There was no difference in patient age, sex, stage, tumor grade, radiation treatment, and chemotherapy treatment between the 2 groups. Total number of regional lymph nodes was examined, and surgical margin status and overall survival were also comparable. However, patients undergoing PPPD had a shorter LOS (11.3 vs 12.3 days, P < 0.001), lower 30-day mortality (2.5% vs 3.7%, P = 0.02), and 90-day mortality (5.5% vs 6.9%, P = 0.03). On multivariate analyses, patients undergoing SPD were at higher risk for 30-day mortality compared with PPPD (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.07–2.13). Conclusions Standard pancreaticoduodenectomy and PPPD are oncologically equivalent, yet PPPD is associated with a reduction in postoperative mortality and shorter LOS.

Background: Histologic subtypes of appendiceal cancer vary in their propensity for metastases to regional lymph nodes (LN). A predictive model would help direct subsequent surgical therapy. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with appendiceal cancer undergoing surgery between 1998 and 2012. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop a predictive model of LN metastases which was internally validated using Brier score and Area under the Curve (AUC). Results: A total of 21,647 patients were identified, of whom 9079 (41.9%) had node negative disease, 4575 (21.1%) node positive disease, and 7993 (36.9%) unknown LN status. The strongest predictors of LN positivity were histology (carcinoid tumors OR 12.78, 95% CI 9.01–18.12), increasing T Stage (T3 OR 3.36, 95% CI 2.52–4.50, T4 OR 6.30, 95% CI 4.71–8.42), and tumor grade (G3 OR 5.55, 95% CI 4.78–6.45, G4 OR 5.98, 95% CI 4.30–8.31). The coefficients from the regression analysis were used to construct a calculator that generated predicted probabilities of LN metastases given certain inputs. Internal validation of the overall model showed an AUC of 0.75 (95% CI 0.74–0.76) and Brier score of 0.188. Histology-specific predictive models were also constructed with an AUC that varied from 0.669 for signet cell to 0.75 for goblet cell tumors. Conclusions: The risk for nodal metastases in patients with appendiceal cancers can be quantified with reasonable accuracy using a predictive model incorporating patient age, sex, tumor histology, T-stage, and grade. This can help inform clinical decision making regarding the need for a right hemicolectomy following appendectomy.

Abdominal paracentesis complicated by perforation of a penetrating arterial branch is an extremely rare complication. We report 2 patients who presented with abdominal wall pseudoaneurysms following abdominal paracentesis for the evaluation and treatment of their hepatic dysfunction. We subsequently review the treatment modalities and interventions performed in each case.