Stefano Andrianello1, Giovanni Marchegiani1, Elisa Bannone1, Gaia Masini1, Giuseppe Malleo1, Gabriele L Montemezzi2, Enrico Polati2, Claudio Bassi1, Roberto Salvia3. 1. General and Pancreatic Surgery - The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, P.Le L.A. Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. 2. Intensive Care Unit - University of Verona Hospital Trust, P.Le L.A. Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. 3. General and Pancreatic Surgery - The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, P.Le L.A. Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. roberto.salvia@univr.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that intraoperative fluid overload is associated with a worse outcome after major abdominal surgery. However, evidence in the field of pancreatic surgery is still not consistent. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether intraoperative fluid management could affect the outcome of a major pancreatic resection. METHODS: Prospective analysis of 350 major pancreatic resections performed in 2016 at the Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery-The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust. Patients were dichotomized according to intraoperative fluid volume administration (near-zero vs. liberal fluid balance) and matched using propensity score. Intraoperative fluid administration was then correlated to the postoperative outcome. RESULTS: Liberal fluid balance was associated with an increased rate of Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIB both after pancreaticoduodenectomy (60.3 vs. 30.2%, p < 0.01) and distal pancreatectomy (50 vs. 27.1%, p = 0.03). In case of pancreaticoduodenectomy, liberal fluid balance was also associated with an increased rate of pancreatic fistula (33.3 vs. 19.9%, p = 0.05), but when considering patients with soft remnants, an increase rate of pancreatic fistula (52.8 vs. 23%, p = 0.03) was indeed associated with the near-zero fluid balance. CONCLUSION: Considering all pancreatic resections, a liberal fluid balance is associated with an increased rate of postoperative morbidity. However, in the case of PD with a soft pancreas, an NZF balance could lead to pancreatic stump ischemia and anastomotic failure. Intraoperative fluid management should be managed according to patient's pancreas-specific risk factors.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that intraoperative fluid overload is associated with a worse outcome after major abdominal surgery. However, evidence in the field of pancreatic surgery is still not consistent. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether intraoperative fluid management could affect the outcome of a major pancreatic resection. METHODS: Prospective analysis of 350 major pancreatic resections performed in 2016 at the Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery-The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust. Patients were dichotomized according to intraoperative fluid volume administration (near-zero vs. liberal fluid balance) and matched using propensity score. Intraoperative fluid administration was then correlated to the postoperative outcome. RESULTS: Liberal fluid balance was associated with an increased rate of Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIB both after pancreaticoduodenectomy (60.3 vs. 30.2%, p < 0.01) and distal pancreatectomy (50 vs. 27.1%, p = 0.03). In case of pancreaticoduodenectomy, liberal fluid balance was also associated with an increased rate of pancreatic fistula (33.3 vs. 19.9%, p = 0.05), but when considering patients with soft remnants, an increase rate of pancreatic fistula (52.8 vs. 23%, p = 0.03) was indeed associated with the near-zero fluid balance. CONCLUSION: Considering all pancreatic resections, a liberal fluid balance is associated with an increased rate of postoperative morbidity. However, in the case of PD with a soft pancreas, an NZF balance could lead to pancreatic stump ischemia and anastomotic failure. Intraoperative fluid management should be managed according to patient's pancreas-specific risk factors.
Entities:
Keywords:
ERAS; Intraoperative fluids; Liberal; Near zero; Outcomes; Pancreas surgery
Authors: Florence Grant; Murray F Brennan; Peter J Allen; Ronald P DeMatteo; T Peter Kingham; Michael D'Angelica; Mary E Fischer; Mithat Gonen; Hao Zhang; William R Jarnagin Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Kristoffer Lassen; Marielle M E Coolsen; Karem Slim; Francesco Carli; José E de Aguilar-Nascimento; Markus Schäfer; Rowan W Parks; Kenneth C H Fearon; Dileep N Lobo; Nicolas Demartines; Marco Braga; Olle Ljungqvist; Cornelis H C Dejong Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Oliver S Eng; Julie Goswami; Dirk Moore; Chunxia Chen; Christopher J Gannon; David A August; Darren R Carpizo Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: M von der Forst; S Weiterer; M Dietrich; M Loos; C Lichtenstern; M A Weigand; B H Siegler Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 1.041