Geert Roeyen1, Miet Jansen2, Laure Ruyssinck3, Thiery Chapelle4, Aude Vanlander3, Bart Bracke4, Vera Hartman4, Dirk Ysebaert4, Frederik Berrevoet3. 1. Department of Hepatobiliary, Endocrine and Transplantation Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine, Antwerp University, Belgium. Electronic address: Geert.roeyen@uza.be. 2. Department of Hepatobiliary, Endocrine and Transplantation Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Belgium. 3. Department of General, Hepatobiliary and Liver Transplantation Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Belgium. 4. Department of Hepatobiliary, Endocrine and Transplantation Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine, Antwerp University, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recently, pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) has attracted renewed interest as a reconstruction technique after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), as it may imply a lower risk of clinical pancreatic fistula than reconstruction by pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ). We hypothesise that pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) is more common during clinical follow-up after PG than it is after PJ. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study compares the prevalence of PEI in patients undergoing PD for malignancy with reconstruction by PG versus reconstruction by PJ. PEI during the first year of follow-up was defined as the intake of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) within one year postoperatively and/or an abnormal exocrine function test. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients, having undergone surgery at two university hospitals, were included in the study. PEI during the first year postoperatively was present in 75.0% of the patients with PG, compared to 45.7% with PJ (p < 0.001). Intake of PERT within one year after surgery was found to be more prevalent in the PG group, i.e. 75.8% versus 38.5% (p < 0.001). There was a trend towards more disturbed exocrine function tests after PG (p = 0.061). CONCLUSIONS: PEI is more common with PG reconstruction than with PJ reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignancy. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVE: Recently, pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) has attracted renewed interest as a reconstruction technique after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), as it may imply a lower risk of clinical pancreatic fistula than reconstruction by pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ). We hypothesise that pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) is more common during clinical follow-up after PG than it is after PJ. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study compares the prevalence of PEI in patients undergoing PD for malignancy with reconstruction by PG versus reconstruction by PJ. PEI during the first year of follow-up was defined as the intake of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) within one year postoperatively and/or an abnormal exocrine function test. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients, having undergone surgery at two university hospitals, were included in the study. PEI during the first year postoperatively was present in 75.0% of the patients with PG, compared to 45.7% with PJ (p < 0.001). Intake of PERT within one year after surgery was found to be more prevalent in the PG group, i.e. 75.8% versus 38.5% (p < 0.001). There was a trend towards more disturbed exocrine function tests after PG (p = 0.061). CONCLUSIONS: PEI is more common with PG reconstruction than with PJ reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignancy. Copyright Â
Authors: Gian Piero Guerrini; Paolo Soliani; Giuseppe D'Amico; Fabrizio Di Benedetto; Marco Negri; Micaela Piccoli; Giacomo Ruffo; Rafael Jose Orti-Rodriguez; Theodora Pissanou; Giuseppe Fusai Journal: J Invest Surg Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: Alexandre Rault; Antonio SaCunha; Daniel Klopfenstein; Dominique Larroudé; Frédéric N Dobo Epoy; Denis Collet; Bernard Masson Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Dorine S J Tseng; I Quintus Molenaar; Marc G Besselink; Casper H van Eijck; Inne H Borel Rinkes; Hjalmar C van Santvoort Journal: Pancreas Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: H Aselmann; J Hendrik Egberts; J Henrik Beckmann; H Stein; C Schafmayer; S Hinz; B Reichert; T Becker Journal: Chirurg Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: Adithya M Pathanki; Joseph A Attard; Elizabeth Bradley; Sarah Powell-Brett; Bobby V M Dasari; John R Isaac; Keith J Roberts; Nikolaos A Chatzizacharias Journal: World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol Date: 2020-04-12
Authors: Igor E Khatkov; Igor V Maev; Sayyar R Abdulkhalov; Sergey A Alekseenko; Ruslan B Allikhanov; Igor G Bakulin; Natalia V Bakulina; Andrey U Baranovskiy; Ekaterina V Beloborodova; Elena A Belousova; Sergey E Voskanyan; Lyudmila V Vinokurova; Vladimir B Grinevich; Vladimir V Darvin; Elena A Dubtsova; Tatiana G Dyuzheva; Vyacheslav I Egorov; Mikhail G Efanov; Roman E Izrailov; Vyacheslav L Korobka; Bogdan N Kotiv; Nikolay Yu Kokhanenko; Yury A Kucheryavy; Maria A Livzan; Vladimir K Lyadov; Karine A Nikolskaya; Marina F Osipenko; Victor D Pasechnikov; Ekaterina Yu Plotnikova; Oleg A Sablin; Vladimir I Simanenkov; Victor V Tsvirkun; Vladislav V Tsukanov; Alexey V Shabunin; Dmitry S Bordin; Professional Medical Society Pancreatic Club Russia Journal: Turk J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 1.852