Literature DB >> 19609621

Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy: complication risk score correlates with morbidity and risk for pancreatic fistula.

Sharon M Weber1, Clifford S Cho, Nipun Merchant, Scott Pinchot, Robert Rettammel, Atilla Nakeeb, David Bentrem, Alex Parikh, Ashley E Mazo, Robert C G Martin, Charles R Scoggins, Syed A Ahmad, Hong Jin Kim, Nicholas Hamilton, William Hawkins, C Max Schmidt, David A Kooby.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgeons are performing laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) with increasing frequency; however, determinants of perioperative outcome after LLP are not well defined. We evaluated factors contributing to morbidity after LLP.
METHODS: Records from patients undergoing LLP from 2000 to 2008 from nine academic medical centers were evaluated to assess risk factors for perioperative complications. Extent of pancreatic resection was determined by the length of the gross pancreatic specimen. Complications and pancreatic fistula rates were assessed, and a model was developed to identify those at risk of postoperative adverse events.
RESULTS: Among the 219 LLP cases, indications were cystic neoplasms in 122 (56%), solid neoplasms in 83 (38%), and chronic pancreatitis in 14 (6%). Thirty-day morbidity and mortality were 39% and 0, respectively. Major complications occurred in 11%. Pancreatic fistulae were detected in 23%, with clinically important fistulae (International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition grade B/C) seen in 10%. On multivariate analysis, only greater estimated blood loss (EBL), higher body mass index (BMI), and longer length of resected pancreas were associated with major complications. A complication risk score consisting of 1 point each for BMI >27, pancreatic specimen length >8 cm, or EBL > or =150 mL predicted an increased risk of complications and pancreatic fistulae.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk of major complications after LLP is 11%, with clinically important pancreatic fistulae occurring in 10%. A complication risk score incorporating BMI, extent of pancreatic resection, and EBL correlates with all end points evaluated. The complication risk score should be used when quality outcome measures are evaluated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19609621     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-009-0597-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  31 in total

1.  Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: results of a multicenter cohort study on 196 patients.

Authors:  Mushegh A Sahakyan; Airazat M Kazaryan; Majd Rawashdeh; David Fuks; Mark Shmavonyan; Sven-Petter Haugvik; Knut Jørgen Labori; Trond Buanes; Bård Ingvald Røsok; Dejan Ignjatovic; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Brice Gayet; Song Cheol Kim; Bjørn Edwin
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Metaanalysis of trials comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomies.

Authors:  Giuseppe R Nigri; Alan S Rosman; Niccolò Petrucciani; Alessandro Fancellu; Michele Pisano; Luigi Zorcolo; Giovanni Ramacciato; Marcovalerio Melis
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Improved perioperative outcomes with minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: results from a population-based analysis.

Authors:  Hop S Tran Cao; Nicole Lopez; David C Chang; Andrew M Lowy; Michael Bouvet; Joel M Baumgartner; Mark A Talamini; Jason K Sicklick
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 14.766

Review 4.  Body mass index and outcomes from pancreatic resection: a review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Andrew M Ramsey; Robert C Martin
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy-a propensity score-matched analysis from the German StuDoQ|Pancreas registry.

Authors:  Ulrich Friedrich Wellner; Hryhoriy Lapshyn; Detlef K Bartsch; Ioannis Mintziras; Ulrich Theodor Hopt; Uwe Wittel; Hans-Jörg Krämling; Hubert Preissinger-Heinzel; Matthias Anthuber; Bernd Geissler; Jörg Köninger; Katharina Feilhauer; Merten Hommann; Luisa Peter; Natascha C Nüssler; Thomas Klier; Ulrich Mansmann; Tobias Keck
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Assessment of a complication risk score and study of complication profile in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Authors:  Giuseppe Malleo; Roberto Salvia; Giuseppe Mascetta; Alessandro Esposito; Luca Landoni; Luca Casetti; Laura Maggino; Claudio Bassi; Giovanni Butturini
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-09-20       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Vein involvement during pancreaticoduodenectomy: is there a need for redefinition of "borderline resectable disease"?

Authors:  Kaitlyn J Kelly; Emily Winslow; David Kooby; Neha L Lad; Alexander A Parikh; Charles R Scoggins; Syed Ahmad; Robert C Martin; Shishir K Maithel; H J Kim; Nipun B Merchant; Clifford S Cho; Sharon M Weber
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 3.452

8.  Risk stratification for distal pancreatectomy utilizing ACS-NSQIP: preoperative factors predict morbidity and mortality.

Authors:  Kaitlyn Jane Kelly; David Yu Greenblatt; Yin Wan; Robert J Rettammel; Emily Winslow; Clifford S Cho; Sharon M Weber
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: the technique must suit the lesion.

Authors:  David J Worhunsky; Yulia Zak; Monica M Dua; George A Poultsides; Jeffrey A Norton; Brendan C Visser
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 10.  Predictive factors for pancreatic fistula following pancreatectomy.

Authors:  Matthew T McMillan; Charles M Vollmer
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 3.445

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.