Literature DB >> 24946170

Pancreatic fistulae after a pancreatico-duodenectomy: are pancreatico-gastrostomies safer than pancreatico-jejunostomies? An expertise-based trial and propensity-score adjusted analysis.

Jad Abou Khalil1, Nancy Mayo, Sinziana Dumitra, Mohammed Jamal, Prosanto Chaudhury, Peter Metrakos, Jeffrey Barkun.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A pancreatic fistula (PF) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality after a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). There remains debate as to whether re-establishing pancreaticoenteric continuity by a pancreatico-gastrostomy (PG) can decrease the risk of a PF and complications compared with a pancreatico-jejunostomy (PJ). The outcomes of patients undergoing these reconstructions after a PD were compared.
METHOD: Patients undergoing a PD between 1999 and 2011 were selected from a prospective database and having undergone either a PG or PJ reconstruction. A propensity-score adjusted multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the effect of surgical technique on outcomes of PF, delayed gastric emptying (DGE) and total complications.
RESULTS: Twenty-three out of 103 and 20 out of 103 (P = 0.49) patients had PF and 74 out of 103 and 55 out of 103 patients had all-grades DGE in the PG and PJ groups, respectively (P = 0.02). The groups did not differ with regards to Clavien-Dindo grade of complications (P = 0.29) but did differ with regards to the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) (38.4 versus 31.4 for PG versus PG, respectively, P = 0.02.) Propensity-score adjusted multivariate analysis showed no effect of PG on PF (P = 0.89), DGE grades B/C (P = 0.9) or CCI (P = 0.41). There remained an effect on all-grades of DGE (P = 0.012.) DISCUSSION: Patients undergoing PG reconstruction had a similar rate of PF as those undergoing a PJ after a PD.
© 2014 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24946170      PMCID: PMC4253328          DOI: 10.1111/hpb.12294

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HPB (Oxford)        ISSN: 1365-182X            Impact factor:   3.647


  18 in total

1.  Prevention of pancreatic anastomotic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Ronnie Tung Ping Poon; Siu Hung Lo; Daniel Fong; Sheung Tat Fan; John Wong
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 2.  Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  P J Devereaux; Mohit Bhandari; Mike Clarke; Victor M Montori; Deborah J Cook; Salim Yusuf; David L Sackett; Claudio S Cinà; S D Walter; Brian Haynes; Holger J Schünemann; Geoffrey R Norman; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-01-08

3.  Stratification for the propensity score compared with linear regression techniques to assess the effect of treatment or exposure.

Authors:  Stephen Senn; Erika Graf; Angelika Caputo
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Cancer statistics, 2012.

Authors:  Rebecca Siegel; Deepa Naishadham; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  Proposal for definition and severity grading of pancreatic anastomosis failure and pancreatic occlusion failure.

Authors:  Steven M Strasberg; David C Linehan; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Jeffrey S Barkun
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2007-03-09       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 6.  Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Moritz N Wente; Shailesh V Shrikhande; Michael W Müller; Markus K Diener; Christoph M Seiler; Helmut Friess; Markus W Büchler
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.565

7.  Conventional versus binding pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Shu You Peng; Jian Wei Wang; Wan Yee Lau; Xiu Jun Cai; Yi Ping Mou; Ying Bin Liu; Jiang Tao Li
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Pancreatic fistula after a pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma and its association with morbidity: a multicentre study of the French Surgical Association.

Authors:  Pietro Addeo; Jean Robert Delpero; Francois Paye; Elie Oussoultzoglou; Pascal R Fuchshuber; Alain Sauvanet; Antonio Sa Cunha; Yves Patrice Le Treut; Mustapha Adham; Jean-Yves Mabrut; Laurence Chiche; Philippe Bachellier
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 3.647

Review 9.  Ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head: a focus on current diagnostic and surgical concepts.

Authors:  Mehdi Ouaïssi; Urs Giger; Guillaume Louis; Igor Sielezneff; Olivier Farges; Bernard Sastre
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Pancreatogastrostomy versus pancreatojejunostomy for RECOnstruction after partial PANCreatoduodenectomy (RECOPANC): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial UTN U1111-1117-9588.

Authors:  Ulrich Friedrich Wellner; Sabine Brett; Thomas Bruckner; Ronald Limprecht; Inga Rossion; Christoph Seiler; Olivia Sick; Inga Wegener; Ulrich Theodor Hopt; Tobias Keck
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 2.279

View more
  2 in total

1.  Early enteral vs. oral nutrition after Whipple procedure: Study protocol for a multicentric randomized controlled trial (NUTRIWHI trial).

Authors:  Gaëtan-Romain Joliat; David Martin; Ismail Labgaa; Emmanuel Melloul; Emilie Uldry; Nermin Halkic; Ginette Fotsing; Alessandra Cristaudi; Pietro Majno-Hurst; Dionisios Vrochides; Nicolas Demartines; Markus Schäfer
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 2.  Pancreatogastrostomy versus Pancreatojejunostomy: An Up-to-Date Meta-Analysis of RCTs.

Authors:  Konstantinos Perivoliotis; Eleni Sioka; Athina Tatsioni; Ioannis Stefanidis; Elias Zintzaras; Dimitrios Zacharoulis
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-07-17
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.