BACKGROUND: Prediction of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) can be carried out with the intraoperative assessment of pancreatic consistency (PC) and via pancreatic duct width (iPDW). Preoperative computed tomography (CT) calculated pancreatic remnant volume (PRV) and duct width (rPDW) have also been shown to offer useful information about the risk of POPF. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the predictive value of the preoperative radiological features as compared with the intraoperative risk estimation for the subsequent development of POPF. METHOD: All patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy between September 2007 and March 2012 at the Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm were included. PRV and rPDW were determined on preoperative CT and in parallel, intraoperative PC and iPDW of the remnant pancreas were independently assessed. RESULTS: A total of 296 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies were included. POPF occurred in 45 patients (15.2 %). Of those with a preoperatively calculated PRV < 23.0 cm(3), 2.8 % developed POPF compared with 25.7 % of those with a corresponding volume > 46.0 cm(3). In patients with an rPDW > 7.0 mm, 4.1 % had a POPF as compared with 38.7 % for those with rPDW < 2.0 mm. The POPF risk estimates based on PRV and rPDW and the intraoperative risk assessments were found to be identical (p < 0.001). In the receiver operating characteristic analysis, area under the curve was 0.80 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.87) and 0.80 (95 % CI 0.72-0.88) for the CT-based and intraoperative risk prediction models, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative CT-based and intraoperative gland risk assessments offer comparable predictive information on the risk of POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy. These results imply that accurate POPF risk estimation can be carried out in the preoperative setting to opt for improved patient selection into relevant research protocols and the availability of surgical expertise and techniques.
BACKGROUND: Prediction of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) can be carried out with the intraoperative assessment of pancreatic consistency (PC) and via pancreatic duct width (iPDW). Preoperative computed tomography (CT) calculated pancreatic remnant volume (PRV) and duct width (rPDW) have also been shown to offer useful information about the risk of POPF. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the predictive value of the preoperative radiological features as compared with the intraoperative risk estimation for the subsequent development of POPF. METHOD: All patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy between September 2007 and March 2012 at the Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm were included. PRV and rPDW were determined on preoperative CT and in parallel, intraoperative PC and iPDW of the remnant pancreas were independently assessed. RESULTS: A total of 296 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies were included. POPF occurred in 45 patients (15.2 %). Of those with a preoperatively calculated PRV < 23.0 cm(3), 2.8 % developed POPF compared with 25.7 % of those with a corresponding volume > 46.0 cm(3). In patients with an rPDW > 7.0 mm, 4.1 % had a POPF as compared with 38.7 % for those with rPDW < 2.0 mm. The POPF risk estimates based on PRV and rPDW and the intraoperative risk assessments were found to be identical (p < 0.001). In the receiver operating characteristic analysis, area under the curve was 0.80 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.87) and 0.80 (95 % CI 0.72-0.88) for the CT-based and intraoperative risk prediction models, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative CT-based and intraoperative gland risk assessments offer comparable predictive information on the risk of POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy. These results imply that accurate POPF risk estimation can be carried out in the preoperative setting to opt for improved patient selection into relevant research protocols and the availability of surgical expertise and techniques.
Authors: Fernando Leal Pereira; Fernando Torres Vasques; André de Moricz; Tércio de Campos; Adhemar Monteiro Pacheco; Rodrigo Altenfelder Silva Journal: Rev Col Bras Cir Date: 2012
Authors: Keith J Roberts; James Hodson; Homoyoon Mehrzad; Ravi Marudanayagam; Robert P Sutcliffe; Paolo Muiesan; John Isaac; Simon R Bramhall; Darius F Mirza Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Ye Rim Chang; Jae Seung Kang; Jin-Young Jang; Woo Hyun Jung; Mee Joo Kang; Kyung Bun Lee; Sun-Whe Kim Journal: World J Surg Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Ryan J Ellis; D Brock Hewitt; Jason B Liu; Mark E Cohen; Ryan P Merkow; David J Bentrem; Karl Y Bilimoria; Anthony D Yang Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-04-05 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Nicolas Linder; Alexander Schaudinn; Katharina Langenhan; Felix Krenzien; Hans-Michael Hau; Christian Benzing; Georgi Atanasov; Moritz Schmelzle; Thomas Kahn; Harald Busse; Michael Bartels; Ulf Neumann; Georg Wiltberger Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2019-04-27 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Fiona R Kolbinger; Julia Lambrecht; Stefan Leger; Till Ittermann; Stefanie Speidel; Jürgen Weitz; Ralf-Thorsten Hoffmann; Marius Distler; Jens-Peter Kühn Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 4.379