BACKGROUND: To date, there is no uniform and standardized manner of defining pancreatic anastomoses after pancreatic resection. METHODS: A systematic search was performed to determine the various factors, either related to the pancreatic remnant after pancreatic resection or to types of pancreatoenteric anastomoses that have been shown to influence failure rates of pancreatic anastomoses. RESULTS: Based on the data obtained, we formulated a new classification that incorporates factors related to the pancreatic remnant, such as pancreatic duct size, length of mobilization, and gland texture, as well as factors related to the pancreatoenteric anastomosis, such as the use of pancreatojejunostomy/pancreatogastrostomy; duct-to-mucosa anastomosis; invagination (dunking) of the remnant into the jejunum or stomach; and the use of a stent (internal or external) across the anastomosis. CONCLUSION: By creating a standardized classification for recording and reporting of the pancreatoenterostomy, future publications would allow a more objective comparison of outcomes after pancreatic surgery. In addition, use of such a classification might encourage studies evaluating outcomes after specific types of anastomoses in certain clinical situations that could lead to the formulation of best practice guidelines of anastomotic techniques for a particular combination of findings in the pancreatic remnant. Copyright (c) 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: To date, there is no uniform and standardized manner of defining pancreatic anastomoses after pancreatic resection. METHODS: A systematic search was performed to determine the various factors, either related to the pancreatic remnant after pancreatic resection or to types of pancreatoenteric anastomoses that have been shown to influence failure rates of pancreatic anastomoses. RESULTS: Based on the data obtained, we formulated a new classification that incorporates factors related to the pancreatic remnant, such as pancreatic duct size, length of mobilization, and gland texture, as well as factors related to the pancreatoenteric anastomosis, such as the use of pancreatojejunostomy/pancreatogastrostomy; duct-to-mucosa anastomosis; invagination (dunking) of the remnant into the jejunum or stomach; and the use of a stent (internal or external) across the anastomosis. CONCLUSION: By creating a standardized classification for recording and reporting of the pancreatoenterostomy, future publications would allow a more objective comparison of outcomes after pancreatic surgery. In addition, use of such a classification might encourage studies evaluating outcomes after specific types of anastomoses in certain clinical situations that could lead to the formulation of best practice guidelines of anastomotic techniques for a particular combination of findings in the pancreatic remnant. Copyright (c) 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Tobias Keck; Simon Küsters; Ulrich Friedrich Wellner; Ulrich Theodor Hopt; Konrad Wojciech Karcz Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Christina Haane; Wolf Arif Mardin; Britta Schmitz; Sameer Dhayat; Richard Hummel; Norbert Senninger; Christina Schleicher; Soeren Torge Mees Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2013-10-19 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Arja Gerritsen; Roos A W Wennink; Marc G H Besselink; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Dorine S J Tseng; Elles Steenhagen; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; I Quintus Molenaar Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Philip R de Reuver; Justin Gundara; Thomas J Hugh; Jaswinder S Samra; Anubhav Mittal Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Andreas Volk; Philipp Nitschke; Franziska Johnscher; Nuh Rahbari; Thilo Welsch; Christoph Reißfelder; Jürgen Weitz; Marius Distler; Soeren Torge Mees Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 3.445