Safety and function of isolated Roux loop pancreaticojejunostomy after Whipple's pancreaticoduodenectomy

A N Kingsnorth, A N Kingsnorth

Abstract

A novel method of pancreatic anastomosis after proximal Whipple-type resection: classical pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD), has been evaluated over a 5-year period from 1987 to 1992 in 52 patients. Indications for resection included chronic pancreatitis (n = 9) and neoplasms (n = 43). Reconstruction involved a cephalad end-to-end duodeno-/gastro-jejunal anastomosis with a biliary anastomosis 6-8 cm downstream. A separate isolated defunctioned Roux loop was used to construct a duct-to-mucosa (Wirsung-jejunal) pancreaticojejunostomy. Median postoperative stay was 18.0 days (range 11-32 days); three deaths (operative mortality 5.8%) occurred due to sepsis (subhepatic abscess), profound hypoglycaemia and necrotising pancreatitis respectively. These deaths were not related to pancreatic fistula. There were no pancreatic leaks (defined as greater than 50 ml of amylase-rich fluid for more than 7 days). Postoperative exocrine pancreatic function was good as assessed by re-establishment of preoperative weight (achieved in 35 of 40, ie 88% of surviving PPPD patients), clinical steatorrhoea (present in 10 of 41, ie 24% of surviving patients resected for neoplasm), and the need for pancreatic exocrine supplements (required in only 4 of 41, ie 9.8% of surviving patients resected for neoplasm). Twenty patients considered to have normal pancreatic remnants underwent a p-aminobenzoic acid (PABA) excretion test at 3 to 18 months after operation. Median PABA excretion index was 48% (range 24-100%). Isolated defunctioned duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy is a safe procedure offering good functional results after Whipple's PD or PPPD resection.

References

    1. Ann Surg. 1941 Oct;114(4):570-602
    1. Ann Surg. 1988 Jan;207(1):39-47
    1. N Engl J Med. 1992 Feb 13;326(7):455-65
    1. Adv Surg. 1992;25:21-49
    1. Ann Surg. 1986 Oct;204(4):411-8
    1. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1993 Jan;75(1):38-42
    1. Int Surg. 1992 Apr-Jun;77(2):80-3
    1. Surg Clin North Am. 1976 Jun;56(3):631-47
    1. Arch Surg. 1989 Jul;124(7):778-81
    1. Ann Surg. 1941 Oct;114(4):612-5
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1989 Nov;169(5):451-3
    1. Am J Surg. 1991 Jan;161(1):45-9; discussion 49-50
    1. Chirurgie. 1987;113(3):262-9
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1974 May;138(5):710-2
    1. Ann Surg. 1990 Apr;211(4):447-58
    1. Arch Surg. 1987 Apr;122(4):416-20
    1. Ann Surg. 1976 Oct;184(4):403-13
    1. Br J Surg. 1990 Jan;77(1):83-5
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1983 Oct;157(4):362-6
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1987 Jun;164(6):545-8
    1. Br J Surg. 1980 Apr;67(4):260-2
    1. Ital J Surg Sci. 1983;13(1):31-4
    1. Ann Surg. 1968 Oct;168(4):629-40
    1. Cancer. 1981 Mar 15;47(6 Suppl):1706-11
    1. Br J Surg. 1986 Aug;73(8):647-50
    1. HPB Surg. 1991 Jun;4(2):109-17; discussion 117-9
    1. Ann Surg. 1935 Oct;102(4):763-79
    1. Surg Annu. 1992;24 Pt 1:89-105
    1. Am J Surg. 1992 May;163(5):530-2
    1. Ann Surg. 1987 Nov;206(5):572-7
    1. Langenbecks Arch Chir. 1991;376(1):50-8
    1. Arch Surg. 1988 Jul;123(7):815-9
    1. Ann Surg. 1984 Apr;199(4):432-7
    1. Anticancer Res. 1991 Sep-Oct;11(5):1831-48
    1. Br J Surg. 1989 Jan;76(1):75-6

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다