No abstract

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.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death and is one of the most aggressive malignant tumors with an overall 5-year survival rate of less than 4%. Surgical resection remains the only potentially curative treatment but is only possible for 15%-20% of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. About 40% of patients have locally advanced nonresectable disease. In the past, determination of pancreatic cancer resectability was made at surgical exploration. The development of modern imaging techniques has allowed preoperative staging of patients. Institutions disagree about the criteria used to classify patients. Vascular invasion in pancreatic cancers plays a very important role in determining treatment and prognosis. There is no evidence-based consensus on the optimal preoperative imaging assessment of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer and a unified definition of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is also lacking. Thus, there is much room for improvement in all aspects of treatment for pancreatic cancer. Multi-detector computed tomography has been widely accepted as the imaging technique of choice for diagnosing and staging pancreatic cancer. With improved surgical techniques and advanced perioperative management, vascular resection and reconstruction are performed more frequently; patients thought once to be unresectable are undergoing radical surgery. However, when attempting heroic surgery, a realistic approach concerning the patient's age and health status, probability of recovery after surgery, perioperative morbidity and mortality and life quality after tumor resection is necessary.

1Moscow Clinical Research and Practical Center, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 2A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 3Kazan State Medical University, Kazan; 4Kazan (Volga) Federal University, Kazan; 5Far Eastern State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Khabarovsk; 6Morozov City Children’s Clinical Hospital, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 7I.I. Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Saint Petersburg; 8Siberian State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Tomsk; 9M.F. Vladimirsky Moscow Regional Research Clinical Institute, Moscow; 10Maimonides State Classical Academy, Moscow; 11V.I. Razumovsky Saratov State Medical University, Saratov; 12I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 13S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy, Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg; 14Surgut State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Surgut; 15City Clinical Hospital Five, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 16Nizhny Novgorod Medical Academy, Ministry of Health of Russia, Nizhny Novgorod; 17Territorial Clinical Hospital Two, Ministry of Health of the Krasnodar Territory, Krasnodar; 18Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Saint Petersburg; 19Rostov State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Rostov-on-Don; 20Omsk Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Omsk; 21Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 22Novosibirsk State Medical University, Novosibirsk; 23Stavropol State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Stavropol; 24Kemerovo State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Kemerovo; 25N.I. Pirogov Russian Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 26A.M. Nikiforov All-Russian Center of Emergency and Radiation Medicine, Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia, Saint Petersburg; 27Federal Research Center, Krasnoyarsk Research Center, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Research Institute of Medical Problems of the North, Krasnoyarsk; 28S.P. Botkin City Clinical Hospital, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 29Tver State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Tver The Russian consensus (a consensus document) on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis has been prepared on the initiative of the Russian «Pancreatic Club» under the Delphi system. Its aim was to identify and consolidate the opinions of Russian experts on the most topical issues of the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis. The interdisciplinary approach involved the participation of leading gastroenterologists, surgeons, and pediatricians.

Worldwide, clinical decision-making in CP is largely based on local expertise, beliefs and disbeliefs. Further development of evidence-based guidelines based on well designed (randomized) studies is strongly encouraged.

The tensile properties of the intact and sutured human intestine were examined using Instron 1122 tensimeter on 471 cadaveric and 98 surgically removed specimens. By a constant strain rate method two maxima curves were received, which permit examination of the intestinal wall as a multi-layered structure. Repeatable results were generated for cadaveric and surgically removed intestines, whose mechanical properties were similar under certain storage conditions. The mechanical properties of intact intestine in axial and transversal directions were different. The mechanical strength of the intact intestinal wall was conditioned by the submucosa and muscularis, while the serosa and mucosa showed no significant strength. Comparison of axial specimens’ mechanical properties of the intact intestinal wall and intestinal wall with all layers sutured through determined that only the submucosa supplies mechanical strength to anastomosis. Other layers contribute no significant force to anastomotic strength. The strength applied to thread during knot tying does not change the participation of the intestinal layers in supplying suture-holding capacity for 8 and 12 mm stitch depth. It was shown graphically why sutures that don’t stitch onto the submucosa are unreliable.

Arterial encasement on CT does not necessarily indicate arterial invasion. Whenever PC is considered unresectable, endoUS should be used. In patients with controversial CT an EUS data for peripancreatic arteries involvement radical resection might be possible, providing survival benefits as compared to R2- resections or palliative surgery.

Pancreatology Club Professional Medical Community, 1A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Research and Practical Center, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 2A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 3Kazan State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Kazan; 4Kazan (Volga) Federal University, Kazan; 5Far Eastern State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Khabarovsk; 6Morozov City Children's Clinical Hospital, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 7I.I. Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Saint Petersburg; 8Siberian State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Tomsk; 9M.F. Vladimirsky Moscow Regional Research Clinical Institute, Moscow; 10Maimonides State Classical Academy, Moscow; 11V.I. Razumovsky State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Saratov; 12I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 13S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy, Ministry of Defense of Russia, Saint Petersburg; 14Surgut State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Surgut; 15City Clinical Hospital Five, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 16Nizhny Novgorod Medical Academy, Ministry of Health of Russia, Nizhny Novgorod; 17Territorial Clinical Hospital Two, Ministry of Health of the Krasnodar Territory, Krasnodar; 18Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Saint Petersburg; 19Rostov State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Rostov-on-Don; 20Omsk Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Omsk; 21Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 22Novosibirsk State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Novosibirsk; 23Stavropol State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Stavropol; 24Kemerovo State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Kemerovo; 25N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 26A.M. Nikiforov All-Russian Center of Emergency and Radiation Medicine, Russian Ministry for Civil Defense, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters, Saint Petersburg; 27Research Institute for Medical Problems of the North, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Krasnoyarsk; 28S.P. Botkin City Clinical Hospital, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 29Tver State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Tver The Russian consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis has been prepared on the initiative of the Russian Pancreatology Club to clarify and consolidate the opinions of Russian specialists (gastroenterologists, surgeons, and pediatricians) on the most significant problems of diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis. This article continues a series of publications explaining the most significant interdisciplinary consensus statements and deals with enzyme replacement therapy.