Literature DB >> 12850681

A comparison of pancreaticogastrostomy and pancreaticojejunostomy following pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Gerard V Aranha1, Pamela Hodul, Eugene Golts, Daniel Oh, Jack Pickleman, Steven Creech.   

Abstract

This retrospective study compares the results of pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) and pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) in our institution, which has extensive experience in both techniques. Between the years of June 1995 and June 2001, 214 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) at our institution. Of these 177 had PG and 97 had pancreatojejunostomy (PJ). There were 117 (54.6%) males and 97 (45.3%) females with a mean age of 64.2 +/- 12.4 years. Indications for surgery were pancreatic adenocarcinoma in 101 (47.2%), ampullary adenocarcinoma in 36 (16.9%), distal bile duct adenocarcinoma in 22 (10.2%), duodenal adenocarcinoma in 9 (4.2%), and miscellaneous causes in 46 (21.4%) of patients. Preoperatively, significant differences in the groups were that the patients undergoing PJ were significantly younger than those undergoing PG. Also noted preoperatively, was that the patients undergoing PG had a significantly lower direct bilirubin than those undergoing PJ. With regard to intraoperative parameters, operative time was significantly shorter in the PJ group when compared to the PG group. When the patients who did not develop fistula (N = 186) were compared to those who developed fistula (N = 28) the significant differences were that the patients who developed fistula were more likely to have hypertension preoperatively and a higher alkaline phosphatase. They also showed a significantly higher drain amylase and were likely to have surgery for ampullary, distal bile duct or duodenal carcinoma rather than pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In addition, those patients who developed fistula had a significantly longer postoperative stay, a larger number of intraabdominal abscesses and leaks at the biliary anastomosis. Thirty-day mortality was significantly higher in the PJ group compared to the PG (4 vs. 0, P = 0.041). There was a significantly larger number of bile leaks in the PJ group when compared to the PG (6 vs. 1, P = 0.048). In addition, the PJ group required a significantly larger number of new CT guided drains to control infection (8 vs. 2, P = 0.046) and the PJ group required a larger number of re-explorations to control infection or bleeding (5 vs. 0, P = 0.018). However, the pancreatic fistula rate was not different between the two groups (12% [PG] vs. 14% [PJ]). This retrospective analysis shows that safety of PG can be performed safely and is associated with less complications than PJ and proposes PG as a suitable and safe alternative to PJ for the management of the pancreatic remnant following PD.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12850681     DOI: 10.1016/s1091-255x(02)00432-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg        ISSN: 1091-255X            Impact factor:   3.452


  49 in total

1.  Survival in 1001 patients with carcinoma of the pancreas.

Authors:  M M Connolly; P J Dawson; F Michelassi; A R Moossa; F Lowenstein
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Pancreaticogastrostomy.

Authors:  A S DILL-RUSSELL
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1952-03-22       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  The use of pancreatogastrostomy after blunt traumatic pancreatic transection: a complete and efficient operation.

Authors:  G O Strauch
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1972-07       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Pancreatogastrostomy: a safe drainage procedure after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Authors:  R Delcore; J H Thomas; G E Pierce; A S Hermreck
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 5.  Evolution and current status of the Whipple procedure: an update for gastroenterologists.

Authors:  S M Strasberg; J A Drebin; N J Soper
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Pancreaticogastrostomy: preferred reconstruction for Whipple resection.

Authors:  D M Morris; R S Ford
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 2.192

7.  Carcinoma of the pancreas and periampullary region.

Authors:  J F Forrest; W P Longmire
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1979-02       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Optimal management of the pancreatic remnant after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  S G Marcus; H Cohen; J H Ranson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Pancreaticojejunostomy versus controlled pancreaticocutaneous fistula in pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary carcinoma.

Authors:  P Reissman; Y Perry; A Cuenca; A Bloom; A Eid; E Shiloni; A Rivkind; A Durst
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 2.565

10.  Pancreatic anastomotic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy: incidence, significance, and management.

Authors:  J J Cullen; M G Sarr; D M Ilstrup
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 2.565

View more
  38 in total

1.  Does pancreatic duct stenting decrease the rate of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Jordan M Winter; John L Cameron; Kurtis A Campbell; David C Chang; Taylor S Riall; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; JoAnn Coleman; Mary B Hodgin; Patricia K Sauter; Christopher J Sonnenday; Christopher L Wolfgang; Michael R Marohn; Charles J Yeo
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Risk-adapted anastomosis for partial pancreaticoduodenectomy reduces the risk of pancreatic fistula: a pilot study.

Authors:  Marco Niedergethmann; Niloufar Dusch; Rizky Widyaningsih; Christel Weiss; Peter Kienle; Stefan Post
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Pancreaticoduodenectomy for advanced duodenal and ampullary adenomatosis in familial adenomatous polyposis.

Authors:  James R A Skipworth; Clare Morkane; Dimitri Aristotle Raptis; Soumil Vyas; Steven W Olde Damink; Charles J Imber; Stephen P Pereira; Massimo Malago; Nicholas West; Robin K S Phillips; Sue K Clark; Arjun Shankar
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2011-03-10       Impact factor: 3.647

4.  Striving for a better operative outcome: 101 pancreaticoduodenectomies.

Authors:  A W C Kow; S P Chan; A Earnest; C Y Chan; K Lim; S Y Chong; K H Lim; C K Ho; S P Chew; K H Liau
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.647

5.  Indications and results of pancreatic stump duct occlusion after duodenopancreatectomy.

Authors:  Sergio Alfieri; Giuseppe Quero; Fausto Rosa; Dario Di Miceli; Antonio Pio Tortorelli; Giovanni Battista Doglietto
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2016-09-08

Review 6.  Which is the best technique for pancreaticoenteric reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy? A critical analysis.

Authors:  Laureano Fernández-Cruz; Andrea Belli; Mario Acosta; Enrique Jiménez Chavarria; Waldemar Adelsdorfer; Miguel Angel López-Boado; Joana Ferrer
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2011-05-28       Impact factor: 2.549

7.  Our contrivances to diminish complications after pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Tatsuo Shimura; Hideki Suzuki; Kenichiro Araki; Tsutomu Kobayashi; Rei Yashima; Yasuhide Kohunato; Ryou Okada; Masahiko Shibata; Hiroyuki Kuwano; Seiichi Takenoshita
Journal:  Int Surg       Date:  2015-05

8.  Pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparison between the two pancreaticojejunostomy methods for approximating the pancreatic parenchyma to the jejunal seromuscular layer: interrupted vs continuous stitches.

Authors:  Seung-Eun Lee; Sung-Hoon Yang; Jin-Young Jang; Sun-Whe Kim
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-10-28       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Prediction of anastomotic leakage after pancreatic head resections by dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI).

Authors:  Dietmar J Dinter; Niloufar Aramin; Christel Weiss; Christoph Singer; Gerald Weisser; Stefan O Schoenberg; Stefan Post; Marco Niedergethmann
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-12-05       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy: clinical predictors and patient outcomes.

Authors:  C Max Schmidt; Jennifer Choi; Emilie S Powell; Constantin T Yiannoutsos; Nicholas J Zyromski; Attila Nakeeb; Henry A Pitt; Eric A Wiebke; James A Madura; Keith D Lillemoe
Journal:  HPB Surg       Date:  2009-05-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.