Stented versus nonstented pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy: a prospective study

J D Roder, H J Stein, K A Böttcher, R Busch, C D Heidecke, J R Siewert, J D Roder, H J Stein, K A Böttcher, R Busch, C D Heidecke, J R Siewert

Abstract

Objective: To compare morbidity and mortality rates of stented versus nonstented pancreaticojejunostomy after partial pancreatoduodenectomy.

Background data: Despite a marked reduction in the mortality rate after partial pancreatoduodenectomy in recent years, leakage of the pancreaticojejunostomy still occurs in 5% to 25% of patients and remains the major source of complications.

Methods: The authors compared the morbidity and mortality rates of 85 consecutive patients who had a partial pancreatoduodenectomy with (n = 44) or without (n = 41) temporary stented external drainage of the pancreatic duct between 1994 and 1997.

Results: A pancreatic fistula was diagnosed in 3 of the 44 patients (6.8%) with stents versus 12 of the 41 patients (29.3%) without stents. Surgical reintervention was necessary in 1 of the 3 patients with a pancreatic fistula in the stented group and 3 of the 12 patients with a pancreatic fistula in the nonstented group. There were two deaths after surgery, both in the nonstented group. The median hospital stay after surgery was 13 days in patients with stents and 29 days in patients without stents.

Conclusion: In this nonrandomized prospective observational study, temporary external drainage of the pancreatic duct with a PVC tube significantly reduced the leakage rate of the pancreaticojejunostomy as well as the duration of hospital stay after partial pancreatoduodenectomy. Although promising, these observations require confirmation by further studies.

References

    1. Br J Surg. 1992 Feb;79(2):152-5
    1. Ann Surg. 1958 Jun;147(6):931-4
    1. Arch Surg. 1992 Aug;127(8):945-9; discussion 949-50
    1. Am J Surg. 1992 May;163(5):530-2
    1. Anticancer Res. 1991 Sep-Oct;11(5):1831-48
    1. Am J Surg. 1992 Jan;163(1):125-30; discussion 130-1
    1. Ann Surg. 1935 Oct;102(4):763-79
    1. Ann Surg. 1990 Apr;211(4):447-58
    1. Hepatogastroenterology. 1989 Dec;36(6):478-85
    1. Arch Surg. 1989 Jul;124(7):778-81
    1. Cancer. 1987 Nov 1;60(9):2284-303
    1. Ann Surg. 1987 Sep;206(3):358-65
    1. Br J Surg. 1987 Sep;74(9):816-9
    1. Br J Surg. 1986 Aug;73(8):647-50
    1. Ann Surg. 1986 Oct;204(4):411-8
    1. Am J Surg. 1986 Jan;151(1):141-9
    1. Ann Surg. 1979 Feb;189(2):129-38
    1. Ann Surg. 1973 Mar;177(3):332-7
    1. Cancer. 1978 Mar;41(3):880-7
    1. Ann Surg. 1995 Nov;222(5):638-45
    1. Am J Surg. 1994 Oct;168(4):295-8
    1. Ann Surg. 1995 Oct;222(4):580-8; discussion 588-92
    1. Ann Surg. 1995 Jun;221(6):635-45; discussion 645-8
    1. Surgery. 1995 Jan;117(1):26-31
    1. Ann Surg. 1995 Jan;221(1):43-9
    1. Arch Surg. 1995 Mar;130(3):295-9; discussion 299-300
    1. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1994 May;76(3):175-9
    1. Am J Surg. 1994 Jul;168(1):66-8
    1. Ann Surg. 1993 May;217(5):430-5; discussion 435-8
    1. Cancer. 1993 Jun 1;71(11):3502-8
    1. Br J Surg. 1994 Feb;81(2):265-9
    1. Cancer. 1993 Oct 1;72(7):2089-97
    1. Br J Surg. 1995 Dec;82(12):1590-7
    1. Am J Surg. 1996 Jan;171(1):170-4; discussion 174-5
    1. Surgery. 1996 Mar;119(3):281-7
    1. Hepatogastroenterology. 1996 Jan-Feb;43(7):275-7
    1. Br J Surg. 1996 Feb;83(2):176-9
    1. Arch Surg. 1997 Mar;132(3):296-9
    1. Gastroenterology. 1997 Sep;113(3):983-94
    1. Ann Surg. 1997 Sep;226(3):248-57; discussion 257-60
    1. Ann Surg. 1997 Nov;226(5):632-41

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren