Judith P M Schots1, Misha D P Luyer2, Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen2. 1. Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. judith.schots@catharinaziekenhuis.nl. 2. Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the value of daily measurement of drain amylase for detecting leakage in gastric cancer surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis including all patients who underwent a gastrectomy for gastric cancer. From January 2013 until December 2015, an intra-abdominal drain was routinely placed. Drain amylase was measured daily. Receiver operator characteristic curves were created to assess the ability of amylase to predict leakage. Sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive value of amylase in drain fluid were determined. Leakage of the gastrojejunostomy or esophagojejunostomy, enteroenterostomy, duodenal stump, or pancreas was diagnosed by CT scan, endoscopy, or during re-operation. From January 2016 until April 2017, no drain was inserted. Surgical outcome and postoperative complications were compared between both groups. RESULTS: Median drain amylase concentrations were higher for each postoperative day in patients with leakage. The optimal cutoff value was 1000 IU/L (sensitivity 77.8%, specificity 98.2%, negative predictive value 96.6%). Sixty-seven consecutive procedures were performed with a drain and 40 procedures without. No differences in group characteristics were observed except for gender. Fourteen patients (13.1%) had a leakage. The incidence and severity of leakage were not different between the patients with and without a drain. There was no significant difference in time to diagnosis (1 vs. 0 days; p 0.34), mortality rate (7.5 vs. 2.5%; p 0.41), and median length of hospital stay (9 days in both groups; p 0.46). CONCLUSION: Daily amylase measurement in drain fluid does not influence the early recognition and management of leakage in gastric cancer surgery.
PURPOSE: To investigate the value of daily measurement of drain amylase for detecting leakage in gastric cancer surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis including all patients who underwent a gastrectomy for gastric cancer. From January 2013 until December 2015, an intra-abdominal drain was routinely placed. Drain amylase was measured daily. Receiver operator characteristic curves were created to assess the ability of amylase to predict leakage. Sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive value of amylase in drain fluid were determined. Leakage of the gastrojejunostomy or esophagojejunostomy, enteroenterostomy, duodenal stump, or pancreas was diagnosed by CT scan, endoscopy, or during re-operation. From January 2016 until April 2017, no drain was inserted. Surgical outcome and postoperative complications were compared between both groups. RESULTS: Median drain amylase concentrations were higher for each postoperative day in patients with leakage. The optimal cutoff value was 1000 IU/L (sensitivity 77.8%, specificity 98.2%, negative predictive value 96.6%). Sixty-seven consecutive procedures were performed with a drain and 40 procedures without. No differences in group characteristics were observed except for gender. Fourteen patients (13.1%) had a leakage. The incidence and severity of leakage were not different between the patients with and without a drain. There was no significant difference in time to diagnosis (1 vs. 0 days; p 0.34), mortality rate (7.5 vs. 2.5%; p 0.41), and median length of hospital stay (9 days in both groups; p 0.46). CONCLUSION: Daily amylase measurement in drain fluid does not influence the early recognition and management of leakage in gastric cancer surgery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Amylase; Anastomotic leakage; Drain fluid; Gastric cancer; Gastric surgery
Authors: L A Busweiler; D Henneman; J L Dikken; M Fiocco; M I van Berge Henegouwen; B P Wijnhoven; R van Hillegersberg; C Rosman; M W Wouters; J W van Sandick Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-07-29 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: James W Maher; William Bakhos; Nissin Nahmias; Luke G Wolfe; Jill G Meador; Nancy Baugh; John M Kellum Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: George Van Buren; Mark Bloomston; Steven J Hughes; Jordan Winter; Stephen W Behrman; Nicholas J Zyromski; Charles Vollmer; Vic Velanovich; Taylor Riall; Peter Muscarella; Jose Trevino; Attila Nakeeb; C Max Schmidt; Kevin Behrns; E Christopher Ellison; Omar Barakat; Kyle A Perry; Jeffrey Drebin; Michael House; Sherif Abdel-Misih; Eric J Silberfein; Steven Goldin; Kimberly Brown; Somala Mohammed; Sally E Hodges; Amy McElhany; Mehdi Issazadeh; Eunji Jo; Qianxing Mo; William E Fisher Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: J Weindelmayer; V Mengardo; A Veltri; G L Baiocchi; S Giacopuzzi; G Verlato; G de Manzoni Journal: Trials Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 2.279