Sebastian Hempel1, Steffen Wolk1, Christoph Kahlert1, Stephan Kersting2, Jürgen Weitz1, Thilo Welsch1, Marius Distler3. 1. Department of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 2. Department of General and Vascular Surgery, St. Josefs Hospital, Freiburg, Germany. 3. Department of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany. marius.distler@uniklinikum-dresden.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a common complication after pancreatic surgery associated with extended hospitalization, increased medical costs, and reduced quality of life. The aim of the present study was to analyze the feasibility of ambulatory drainage and develop an ambulatory management algorithm. METHODS: Patients with POPF grade B or C (according to the ISGPF classification) between Jan. 2005 and Dec. 2014 that required persistent drainage were identified from a prospectively collected database. Postoperative events and clinical outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 132 out of 887 patients (14.8%) developed a POPF (grade B or C), and 45 (34.1%) were discharged from the hospital with percutaneous drainage. For patients with grade B fistulas, the mean hospital stay was significantly shorter compared to patients with grade C fistulas (mean 27.7 vs. 40 days; p = 0.0285). About 40% of patients with ambulatory drainage developed a complication, but only 28.9% required readmission. Of those, 52.9% did not require specific treatment and 26.3% were treated with a new drain placement. None of the patients developed major complications, and there was no difference in the frequency of complications between the two groups (p = 0.872). The duration of drain persistence was significantly shorter for patients with grade B fistulas than for those with grade C fistulas (52.2 vs. 85.9 days; p = 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory drainage management is feasible in selected patients. No severe complications occurred during ambulatory drainage management. A management algorithm is recommended as this could possibly reduce medical costs and improve quality of life.
PURPOSE:Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a common complication after pancreatic surgery associated with extended hospitalization, increased medical costs, and reduced quality of life. The aim of the present study was to analyze the feasibility of ambulatory drainage and develop an ambulatory management algorithm. METHODS:Patients with POPF grade B or C (according to the ISGPF classification) between Jan. 2005 and Dec. 2014 that required persistent drainage were identified from a prospectively collected database. Postoperative events and clinical outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 132 out of 887 patients (14.8%) developed a POPF (grade B or C), and 45 (34.1%) were discharged from the hospital with percutaneous drainage. For patients with grade B fistulas, the mean hospital stay was significantly shorter compared to patients with grade C fistulas (mean 27.7 vs. 40 days; p = 0.0285). About 40% of patients with ambulatory drainage developed a complication, but only 28.9% required readmission. Of those, 52.9% did not require specific treatment and 26.3% were treated with a new drain placement. None of the patients developed major complications, and there was no difference in the frequency of complications between the two groups (p = 0.872). The duration of drain persistence was significantly shorter for patients with grade B fistulas than for those with grade C fistulas (52.2 vs. 85.9 days; p = 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory drainage management is feasible in selected patients. No severe complications occurred during ambulatory drainage management. A management algorithm is recommended as this could possibly reduce medical costs and improve quality of life.
Entities:
Keywords:
Drain management; Pancreatic fistula; Pancreatic surgery
Authors: Daniel J Moskovic; Sally E Hodges; Meng-Fen Wu; F Charles Brunicardi; Susan G Hilsenbeck; William E Fisher Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Amy Tilara; Hans Gerdes; Peter Allen; William Jarnagin; Peter Kingham; Yuman Fong; Ronald DeMatteo; Michael D'Angelica; Mark Schattner Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-10-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Claudio Bassi; Giovanni Marchegiani; Christos Dervenis; Micheal Sarr; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Mustapha Adham; Peter Allen; Roland Andersson; Horacio J Asbun; Marc G Besselink; Kevin Conlon; Marco Del Chiaro; Massimo Falconi; Laureano Fernandez-Cruz; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Abe Fingerhut; Helmut Friess; Dirk J Gouma; Thilo Hackert; Jakob Izbicki; Keith D Lillemoe; John P Neoptolemos; Attila Olah; Richard Schulick; Shailesh V Shrikhande; Tadahiro Takada; Kyoichi Takaori; William Traverso; Charles R Vollmer; Christopher L Wolfgang; Charles J Yeo; Roberto Salvia; Marcus Buchler Journal: Surgery Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Michelle L DeOliveira; Jordan M Winter; Markus Schafer; Steven C Cunningham; John L Cameron; Charles J Yeo; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Markus K Diener; Christoph M Seiler; Inga Rossion; Jörg Kleeff; Matthias Glanemann; Giovanni Butturini; Ales Tomazic; Christiane J Bruns; Olivier R C Busch; Stefan Farkas; Orlin Belyaev; John P Neoptolemos; Christopher Halloran; Tobias Keck; Marco Niedergethmann; Klaus Gellert; Helmut Witzigmann; Otto Kollmar; Peter Langer; Ulrich Steger; Jens Neudecker; Frederik Berrevoet; Silke Ganzera; Markus M Heiss; Steffen P Luntz; Thomas Bruckner; Meinhard Kieser; Markus W Büchler Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-04-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Marius Distler; Stephan Kersting; Felix Rückert; Peggy Kross; Hans-Detlev Saeger; Jürgen Weitz; Robert Grützmann Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2014-08-15 Impact factor: 2.102