• Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.257-262
• /
• 2022

Backgrounds/Aims: Middle hepatic vein (MHV) is usually preserved as a part of the right or left hepatectomy in order preserve the venous outflow of remnant liver. The aim of this study was to evaluate if resection of MHV could influence post-resection outcomes of standard right or left hepatectomy. Methods: Patients who underwent standard right or left hepatectomy between January 2015 and December 2019 were included. Anatomical remnant liver volumes were measured retrospectively using the Hermes workstation (Hermes Medical Solutions AB, Stockholm, Sweden). Uni- and multi-variate analyses were performed to assess the difference in outcomes of those with preservation of MHV and those without preservation. Results: A total of 144 patients were included. Right hepatectomy was performed for 114 (79.2%) and left hepatectomy was performed for 30 (20.8%) patients. MHV was resected for 13 (9.0%) in addition to the standard right or left hepatectomy. Median remnant liver volume was significantly higher in the MHV resected group (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in serum level of bilirubin, international normalized ratio, alanine aminotransferase, creatinine on postoperative day 1, 3, 5, or 10, ≥ grade IIIa complications (p = 0.44), or 90-day mortality (p = 0.41). On multivariable analysis, resection of the MHV did not influence the incidence of post hepatectomy liver failure (p = 0.52). Conclusions: Resection of the MHV at standard right or left hepatectomy did not have a negative impact on postoperative outcomes of patients with adequate remnant liver volume.

• The Journal of the Korean Society for Microbiology
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.311-329
• /
• 1986

The experimental exposure of animals to sources of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) which emit their energy primarily in the UVB region (280-320nm) is known to result in a number of well-described changes in the recipient's immune competence. Two such changes include a depressed capacity to effectively respond immunologically to transplants of syngeneic UVR tumors and a markedly reduced responsiveness to known inducers of delayedtype (DTH) and contact hypersensitivity (CH) reactions. The results of experiments that were designed to elucidate the mechanisms responsible for UVR-induced immunomodulation have implicated: 1) an altered pattern of lymphocyte recirculation, 2) suppressor T cells(Ts), 3) deviations in systemic antigen presenting cell (APC) potential. 4) changes in the production of interleukin-1-like molecules, and 5) the functional inactivation of epidermal Langerhans cells in this process. The exposure of skin to UVR, therefore, causes a number of both local and systemic alterations to the normal host immune system. In spite of this seeming complexity and diversity of responses, our recent studies have established that each of the UVR-mediated changes is probably of equal importance to creating the UVR-induced immunocompromised state. Normal animals were exposed to low dose UVR radiation on their dorsal surfaces under conditions where a $3.0\;cm^2$ area of skin was physically protected from the light energy. Contact sensitization of these animals with DNFB, to either the irradiated or protected back skin, resulted in markedly reduced CH responses. This was observed in spite of a normal responsiveness following the skin sensitization to ventral surfaces of the UVR-exposed animals. Systemic treatment of the low dose UVR recipients with the drug indomethacin (1-3 micrograms/day) during the UVR exposures resulted in a complete reversal of the depressions observed following DNFB sensitization to "protected" dorsal skin while the altered responsiveness found in the group exposed to the skin reactive chemical through directly UVR-exposed sites was maintained. These studies implicate the importance of EC as effective APC in the skin and also suggest that some of the systemic influences caused by UVR exposure involve the production of prostaglandins. This concept was further supported by finding that indomethacin treatment was also capable of totally reversing the systemic depressions in CH responsiveness caused by high dose UVR exposure (30K joules/$m^2$) of mice. Attempts to analyze the cellular mechanisms responsible established that the spleens of all animals which demonstrated altered CH responses, regardless of whether sensitization was through a normal or an irradiated skin site, contained suppressor cells. Interestingly, we also found normal levels of T effector cells in the peripheral lymph nodes of the UVR-exposed mice that were contact sensitized through normal skin. No effector cells were found when skin sensitization took place through irradiated skin sites. In spite of such an apparent paradox, insight into the probable mechanisms responsible for these observations was provided by establishing that UVR exposure of skin results in a striking and dose-dependent blockade of the efferent lymphatic vessels in all peripheral lymph nodes. Therefore, the afferent phases of immune responses can apparently take place normally in UVR exposed animals when antigen is applied to normal skin. The final effector responses, however, appear to be inhibited in the UVR-exposed animals by an apparent block of effector cell mobility. This contrasts with findings in the normal animals. Following contact sensitization, normal animals were also found to simultaneously contain both antigen specific suppressor T cells and lymph node effector cells. However, these normal animals were fully capable of mobilizing their effector cells into the systemic circulation, thereby allowing a localization of these cells to peripheral sites of antigen challenge. Our results suggest that UVR is probably not a significant inducer of suppressor T-cell activity to topically applied antigens. Rather, UVR exposure appears to modify the normal relationship which exists between effector and regulatory immune responses in vivo. It does so by either causing a direct reduction in the skin's APC function, a situation which results in an absence of effector cell generation to antigens applied to UVR-exposed skin sites, inhibiting the capacity of effector cells to gain access to skin sites of antigen challenge or by sequestering the lymphocytes with effector cell potential into the draining peripheral lymph nodes. Each of these situations result in a similar effect on the UVR-exposed host, that being a reduced capacity to elicit a CH response. We hypothesize that altered DTH responses, altered alloresponses, and altered graft-versus-host responses, all of which have been observed in UVR exposed animals, may result from similar mechanisms.

• Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.403-414
• /
• 2023

Backgrounds/Aims: Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is recommended in fit patients with a carcinoma (PDAC) of the pancreatic head, and a delayed resection may affect survival. This study aimed to correlate the time from staging to PD with long-term survival, and study the impact of preoperative investigations (if any) on the timing of surgery. Methods: Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple's (RAW) study, a multicentre retrospective study of PD outcomes. Only PDAC patients who underwent an upfront resection were included. Patients who received neoadjuvant chemo-/radiotherapy were excluded. Group A (PD within 28 days of most recent preoperative computed tomography [CT]) was compared to group B (> 28 days). Results: A total of 595 patents were included. Compared to group A (median CT-PD time: 12.5 days, interquartile range: 6-21), group B (49 days, 39-64.5) had similar one-year survival (73% vs. 75%, p = 0.6), five-year survival (23% vs. 21%, p = 0.6) and median time-to-death (17 vs. 18 months, p = 0.8). Staging laparoscopy (43 vs. 29.5 days, p = 0.009) and preoperative biliary stenting (39 vs. 20 days, p < 0.001) were associated with a delay to PD, but magnetic resonance imaging (32 vs. 32 days, p = 0.5), positron emission tomography (40 vs. 31 days, p > 0.99) and endoscopic ultrasonography (28 vs. 32 days, p > 0.99) were not. Conclusions: Although a treatment delay may give rise to patient anxiety, our findings would suggest this does not correlate with worse survival. A delay may be necessary to obtain further information and minimize the number of PD patients diagnosed with early disease recurrence.

• Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.70-79
• /
• 2024

Backgrounds/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes. Methods: Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple's study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes. Results: In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was "enteral only," "parenteral only," and "enteral and parenteral" in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m² (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN. Conclusions: A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.