Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 7, pp 3393–3400 | Cite as

Transpapillary endopancreatic surgery: decompression of duct system and comparison of greenlight laser with monopolar electrosurgical device in ex vivo and in vivo animal models

  • Philip C. MüllerEmail author
  • Daniel C. Steinemann
  • Lukas Chinczewski
  • Gencay Hatiboglu
  • Felix Nickel
  • Kaspar Z’graggen
  • Beat P. Müller-Stich
Dynamic Manuscript



Endopancreatic surgery (EPS) is an experimental minimally invasive technique for resection of pancreatic tissue from inside the pancreatic duct, accessed via the duodenum and papilla. It is proposed as an alternative to duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection in benign diseases such as chronic pancreatitis (CP). This study evaluated the use of EPS for resection of pancreatic duct stenoses. Moreover, greenlight laser (GLL) and monopolar electrosurgical device (MES) were compared as resection tools for EPS.


The suitability of EPS for resection of stenoses was evaluated in ex vivo bovine pancreas (n = 8). Artificially created stenoses in the pancreatic head were accessed via the duodenal papilla and resected from inside the organ with MES through a rigid endoscope. Furthermore, standardized pancreatic resections were performed in an in vivo porcine model using either GLL (n = 18) or MES (n = 18) to compare blood loss, operating time, and complications. Thermal damage to the surrounding tissue was assessed using a standardized histological classification.


Stenosis resection by EPS was feasible in 8/8 bovine pancreases, with a procedure time of 17 (12–24) min. No perforation of the organ occurred. Resection by GLL was associated with reduced blood loss [median 1.7 (interquartile range 0.6–2.6) ml vs. 5.1 (3.8–13.2) ml; p < 0.01] and shorter operating time [109 (81–127) s vs. 390 (337–555) s; p < 0.01] compared with MES. The zone of thermal tissue damage was more extensive when using GLL than with MES [4.12 (3.48–4.89) mm vs. 1.33 (1.09–1.48) mm; p < 0.01].


Transduodenal-transpapillary EPS can be used to resect stenoses and decompress the pancreatic duct system. Both GLL and MES are feasible resection methods for EPS. However, GLL showed better hemostatic characteristics than MES in an in vivo porcine model. Safety measures such as temperature control and image-guided navigation should be employed to monitor the resection and tissue heating.


Pancreatic surgery Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery Chronic pancreatitis Pancreatoscopy Greenlight laser 



Chronic pancreatitis


Duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection


Electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing systems


Endopancreatic surgery


Greenlight laser


Monopolar electrosurgical device


Ultrasonic coagulation shears



The authors thank Felix Lasitschka of the Institute of Pathology. University Hospital Heidelberg for his advice and help on the experiments.

Author contributions

PCM: study design, performing the experiments, statistical analysis, writing the manuscript; DCS: study design, performing the experiments, writing the manuscript; LC: performing the experiments, statistical analysis, writing the manuscript; GH, FN: performing the experiments, critical revision of the manuscript; KZ and BPM: study design, interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript.


Philip C. Müller is supported by the Swiss Pancreas Foundation. All other authors have nothing to disclose. The work was supported by the Heidelberg Foundation of Surgery.

Compliance with ethical standards


Philip C. Müller, Daniel C. Steinemann, Lukas Chinczewski, Gencay Hatiboglu, Felix Nickel, Kaspar Z’graggen, and Beat P. Müller-Stich have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MOV 11838 KB)


  1. 1.
    Beger HG, Witte C, Krautzberger W, Bittner R (1980) Experiences with duodenum-sparing pancreas head resection in chronic pancreatitis. Chirurg 51:303–307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gloor B, Friess H, Uhl W, Büchler MW (2001) A modified technique of the Beger and Frey procedure in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Dig Surg 18:21–25. doi: 50092CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frey CF, Smith GJ (1987) Description and rationale of a new operation for chronic pancreatitis. Pancreas 2:701–707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gurusamy KS, Lusuku C, Halkias C, Davidson BR (2016) Duodenum-preserving pancreatic resection versus pancreaticoduodenectomy for chronic pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD011521. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diener MK, Rahbari NN, Fischer L, Antes G, Büchler MW, Seiler CM (2008) Duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection versus pancreatoduodenectomy for surgical treatment of chronic pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 247:950–961. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Müller PC, Steinemann DC, Sauer P, Z’graggen K, Linke GR, Müller-Stich BP (2017) Balloon dilatation of the minor duodenal papilla up to 4 mm is safe in a Porcine Model. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Müller PC, Steinemann DC, Nickel F, Chinczewski L, Müller-Stich BP, Linke GR, Z’graggen K (2017) Transduodenal-transpapillary endopancreatic surgery with a rigid resectoscope: experiments on ex vivo, in vivo animal models and human cadavers. Surg Endosc. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hefermehl LJ, Largo RA, Hermanns T, Poyet C, Sulser T, Eberli D (2014) Lateral temperature spread of monopolar, bipolar and ultrasonic instruments for robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. BJU Int 114:245–252. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lamberton GR, Hsi RS, Jin DH, Lindler TU, Jellison FC, Baldwin DD (2008) Prospective comparison of four laparoscopic vessel ligation devices. J Endourol 22:2307–2312. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steinemann DC, Lamm SH, Zerz A (2016) Efficacy and safety of combined ultrasonic and bipolar energy source in laparoscopic surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 20:1760–1768. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Müller PC, Senft JD, Gath P, Steinemann DC, Nickel F, Billeter AT, Müller-Stich BP, Linke GR (2017) Transrectal rigid-hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy can be performed without peritoneal contamination: a controlled porcine survival study. Surg Endosc. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elterman DS (2015) How i do it: GreenLight XPS 180W photoselective vaporization of the prostate. Can J Urol 22:7836–7843PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kauffman EC, Kang HW, Choi BB (2009) The effect of laser-fiber sweeping speed on the efficiency of photoselective vaporization of the prostate in an ex vivo bovine model. J Endourol 23:1429–1435. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brackett KA, Sankar MY, Joffe SN (1986) Effects of Nd:YAG laser photoradiation on intra-abdominal tissues: a histological study of tissue damage versus power density applied. Lasers Surg Med 6:123–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meyer HJ, Haverkampf K (1982) Experimental study of partial liver resection with a combined CO2 and Nd:YAG laser. Lasers Surg Med 2:149–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bordeianou L, Sylla P, Kinnier CV, Rattner D (2015) Perineal sigmoidopexy utilizing transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) to treat full thickness rectal prolapse: a feasibility trial in porcine and human cadaver models. Surg Endosc 29:686–691. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zdichavsky M, Krautwald M, Meile T, Wichmann D, Lange J, Königsrainer A, Schurr MO (2015) Single-port live donor nephrectomy using a novel curved radius r2 surgical system in an in vivo model. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 24:63–67. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schröder T, Brackett K, Joffe SN (1987) Proximal pancreatectomy: a comparison of electrocautery and contact and noncontact Nd:YAG laser techniques in the dog. Am J Surg 154:493–498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Al-Ansari A, Younes N, Sampige VP, Al-Rumaihi K, Ghafouri A, Gul T, Shokeir AA (2010) GreenLight HPS 120-W laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized clinical trial with midterm follow-up. Eur Urol 58:349–355. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bruyère F, Huglo D, Challacombe B, Haillot O, Valat C, Brichart N (2011) Blood loss comparison during transurethral resection of prostate and high power GreenLight(™) laser therapy using isotopic measure of red blood cells volume. J Endourol 25:1655–1659. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rückert F, Brussig T, Kuhn M, Kersting S, Bunk A, Hunger M, Saeger H-D, Niedergethmann M, Post S, Grützmann R (2013) Malignancy in chronic pancreatitis: analysis of diagnostic procedures and proposal of a clinical algorithm. Pancreatology 13:243–249. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kan CF, Chan ACL, Pun CT, Ho LY, Chan SW-H, Au WH (2015) Heat Damage zones created by different energy sources used in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in a pig liver model. J Endourol 29:714–717. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Okamoto T, Onda S, Yasuda J, Yanaga K, Suzuki N, Hattori A (2015) Navigation surgery using an augmented reality for pancreatectomy. Dig Surg 32:117–123. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Banz VM, Müller PC, Tinguely P, Inderbitzin D, Ribes D, Peterhans M, Candinas D, Weber S (2016) Intraoperative image-guided navigation system: development and applicability in 65 patients undergoing liver surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 401:495–502. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tan C-L, Zhang H, Li K-Z (2015) Single center experience in selecting the laparoscopic Frey procedure for chronic pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol 21:12644–12652. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pitkäranta P, Kivisaari L, Nordling S, Saari A, Schröder T (1989) Experimental chronic pancreatitis in the pig. Scand J Gastroenterol 24:987–992CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lamme B, Boermeester MA, Straatsburg IH, van Buijtenen JM, Boerma D, Offerhaus GJA, Gouma DJ, van Gulik TM (2007) Early versus late surgical drainage for obstructive pancreatitis in an experimental model. Br J Surg 94:849–854. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip C. Müller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel C. Steinemann
    • 1
  • Lukas Chinczewski
    • 1
  • Gencay Hatiboglu
    • 2
  • Felix Nickel
    • 1
  • Kaspar Z’graggen
    • 3
  • Beat P. Müller-Stich
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation SurgeryUniversity Hospital HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryClinic Beau-Site, HirslandenBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations