Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Introduction: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been proposed as a new treatment option for locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer (LAPC). In preparation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), the aim of this phase II study was to assess the safety of RFA for patients with LAPC.
Materials And Methods: Patients diagnosed with LAPC confirmed during surgical exploration between November 2012 and April 2014 were eligible for inclusion. RFA probes were placed under ultrasound guidance with a safety margin of at least 10 mm from the duodenum and 15 mm from the portomesenteric vessels. During RFA, the duodenum was continuously perfused with cold saline to reduce risk for thermal damage. Primary outcome was defined as the amount of major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III). RFA-related complications were predefined as: pancreatic fistula, pancreatitis, thermal damage to the portomesenteric vessels and duodenal perforation.
Results: In total, 17 patients underwent RFA. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) requiring endoscopic feeding tube placement occurred in 4 patients (24%) as only major complication. Five patients (29%) had a major complication other than DGE. One (6%) RFA-related major complications occurred. One patient (6%) died due to complications from a biliary leak following hepaticojejunostomy. After evaluation of the first 5 patients, gastrojejunostomy was no longer performed routinely. Since then severe DGE seemed to occur less (3/5 vs. 3/12 grade C DGE).
Conclusion: RFA is a major, but safe procedure for patients with LAPC if performed with strict predefined safety criteria. A RCT is currently investigating the true effectiveness of RFA in patients with LAPC.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.06.008 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!