M T Trudeau1, L Maggino1,2, B L Ecker1, C M Vollmer3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Charles.Vollmer@uphs.upenn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify optimal management decisions for surgeons preforming pancreatic head resection on patients with altered anatomy due to a previous Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). METHODS: A multi-national (4), multi-center (28) collaborative of 55 pancreatic surgeons who have performed pancreatoduodenectomy or total pancreatectomy following RYGB for obesity (2005-2018) was created. Demographics, operative details, and perioperative outcomes from this cohort were analyzed and compared in a propensity-score matched analysis with a multi-center cohort of 5533 pancreatoduodenectomies without prior RYGB. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients with a previous RYGB undergoing pancreatic head resection were assembled. Pathologic indications between the RYGB and normal anatomy cohorts did not differ. Propensity score matching of RYGB vs. patients with unaltered anatomy demonstrated no differences in major postoperative outcomes. In total 20 distinct reconstructions were employed (of 37 potential options); the three most frequent reconstructions accounted for 52.1%, and none demonstrated superior outcomes. There were no differences in outcomes observed between original biliopancreatic limb use (66.7%) and those where a secondary Roux limb was created for biliopancreatic reconstruction. Remnant stomachs were removed in 54.7% of cases, with no outcome differences between resected and retained stomachs. Venting gastrostomy tubes were used in 36.2% of retained stomachs without obvious outcome benefits. Jejunostomy tubes were used infrequently (11.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic head resection after RYGB is an infrequently encountered, unique and challenging scenario for any given surgeon. These patients do not appear to suffer higher morbidity than those with unaltered anatomy. Various technical reconstructive options do not appear to confer distinct benefits.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify optimal management decisions for surgeons preforming pancreatic head resection on patients with altered anatomy due to a previous Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). METHODS: A multi-national (4), multi-center (28) collaborative of 55 pancreatic surgeons who have performed pancreatoduodenectomy or total pancreatectomy following RYGB for obesity (2005-2018) was created. Demographics, operative details, and perioperative outcomes from this cohort were analyzed and compared in a propensity-score matched analysis with a multi-center cohort of 5533 pancreatoduodenectomies without prior RYGB. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients with a previous RYGB undergoing pancreatic head resection were assembled. Pathologic indications between the RYGB and normal anatomy cohorts did not differ. Propensity score matching of RYGB vs. patients with unaltered anatomy demonstrated no differences in major postoperative outcomes. In total 20 distinct reconstructions were employed (of 37 potential options); the three most frequent reconstructions accounted for 52.1%, and none demonstrated superior outcomes. There were no differences in outcomes observed between original biliopancreatic limb use (66.7%) and those where a secondary Roux limb was created for biliopancreatic reconstruction. Remnant stomachs were removed in 54.7% of cases, with no outcome differences between resected and retained stomachs. Venting gastrostomy tubes were used in 36.2% of retained stomachs without obvious outcome benefits. Jejunostomy tubes were used infrequently (11.7%). CONCLUSIONS:Pancreatic head resection after RYGB is an infrequently encountered, unique and challenging scenario for any given surgeon. These patients do not appear to suffer higher morbidity than those with unaltered anatomy. Various technical reconstructive options do not appear to confer distinct benefits.
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: Ninh T Nguyen; Hossein Masoomi; Cheryl P Magno; Xuan-Mai T Nguyen; Kelly Laugenour; John Lane Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2011-05-31 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Mark D Smith; Abidemi Adeniji; Abdus S Wahed; Emma Patterson; William Chapman; Anita P Courcoulas; Gregory Dakin; David Flum; Carol McCloskey; James E Mitchell; Alfons Pomp; Myrlene Staten; Bruce Wolfe Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: June S Peng; Ricard Corcelles; Kevin Choong; Matthew Poturalski; Namita Gandhi; R Matthew Walsh; Jeffrey M Hardacre; Stacy A Brethauer; Gareth Morris-Stiff Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: William F Morano; Mohammad F Shaikh; Elizabeth M Gleeson; Alvaro Galvez; Marian Khalili; John Lieb; Elizabeth P Renza-Stingone; Wilbur B Bowne Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: Andrew A Gumbs; Elie Chouillard; Mohamed Abu Hilal; Roland Croner; Brice Gayet; Michel Gagner Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 4.584