Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgical Oncology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Pancreatoduodenostomy | Research

Modified duct-to-mucosa versus conventional pancreaticoenterostomy for pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective cohort study based on propensity score matching analysis

Published in: World Journal of Surgical Oncology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) remains the most common neopathy after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). An ideal pancreaticoenterostomy (PE) which can effectively reduce the incidence of CR-POPF and its potential neopathy is needed. We aimed to assess the efficacy of our modified duct-to-mucosa PE in the PD.

Method

From January 2011 to December 2017, 233 consecutive patients with PD were retrospectively included from Shenzhen People’s Hospital. After propensity score matching (PSM), there were 82 patients in both the modified duct-to-mucosa PE group (group A) and the conventional end-to-side inserting PE group (group B), respectively. The clinical course and the incidence of postoperative neopathy were compared between groups. Logistic regression method was utilized to analyze the association between PE approach and CR-POPF.

Results

The PE time was shorter in group A (9.3 ± 1.8 min vs. 21.5 ± 2.8 min, P < 0.001). The group A had significantly lower incidence of severe neopathy (Clavien–Dindo grade > II) [7.3% (5/82) vs. 17.1% (14/82), P = 0.028] and incidence of CR-POPF [1.2% (1/82) vs. 19.5% (12/82), P < 0.001] than the group B. Our modified duct-to-mucosa PE technique was associated with a reduced risk for CR-POPF (OR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.02–0.57]; P = 0.009) as compared with the conventional end-to-side inserting PE.

Conclusion

Compared with conventional end-to-side inserting PE, our modified duct-to-mucosa PE technique can effectively reduce the incidences of postoperative neopathy and CR-POPF.

Trial registration

Researchregistry​3877. Registered 24 March 2018. Retrospectively registered.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kim HS, Han Y, Kang JS, Kim H, Kim JR, Koon W, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes between open and robot-assisted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25:142–9.CrossRef Kim HS, Han Y, Kang JS, Kim H, Kim JR, Koon W, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes between open and robot-assisted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25:142–9.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Wang J, Ma R, Churilov L, Eleftheriou P, Nikfarjam M, Christophi C, et al. The cost of perioperative complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review. Pancreatol. 2018;18:208-20. Wang J, Ma R, Churilov L, Eleftheriou P, Nikfarjam M, Christophi C, et al. The cost of perioperative complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review. Pancreatol. 2018;18:208-20.
3.
go back to reference Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery. 2017:584–91. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery. 2017:584–91.
4.
go back to reference Kim DH, Choi SH, Choi DW, Heo JS. Division of surgeon workload in pancreaticoduodenectomy: striving to decrease post-operative pancreatic fistula. ANZ J Surg. 2017;87:569–75.CrossRef Kim DH, Choi SH, Choi DW, Heo JS. Division of surgeon workload in pancreaticoduodenectomy: striving to decrease post-operative pancreatic fistula. ANZ J Surg. 2017;87:569–75.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Xu J, Ji SR, Zhang B, Ni QX, Yu XJ. Strategies for pancreatic anastomosis after pancreaticoduodenectomy: what really matters? Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2018:22–6. Xu J, Ji SR, Zhang B, Ni QX, Yu XJ. Strategies for pancreatic anastomosis after pancreaticoduodenectomy: what really matters? Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2018:22–6.
6.
go back to reference El Nakeeb A, El Hemaly M, Askr W, Abd Ellatif M, Hamed H, Elghawalby A, et al. Comparative study between duct to mucosa and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized study. Int J Surg. 2015:1–6. El Nakeeb A, El Hemaly M, Askr W, Abd Ellatif M, Hamed H, Elghawalby A, et al. Comparative study between duct to mucosa and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized study. Int J Surg. 2015:1–6.
7.
go back to reference Hua J, He Z, Qian D, Meng H, Zhou B, Song Z. Duct-to-mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19:1900–9.CrossRef Hua J, He Z, Qian D, Meng H, Zhou B, Song Z. Duct-to-mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19:1900–9.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Andrianello S, Pea A, Pulvirenti A, Allegrini V, Marchegiani G, Malleo G, et al. Pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: suture material and incidence of post-operative pancreatic fistula. Pancreatology. 2016;16:138–41.CrossRef Andrianello S, Pea A, Pulvirenti A, Allegrini V, Marchegiani G, Malleo G, et al. Pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: suture material and incidence of post-operative pancreatic fistula. Pancreatology. 2016;16:138–41.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Bai X, Zhang Q, Gao S, Lou J, Li G, Zhang Y, et al. Duct-to-mucosa vs invagination for pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial from a single surgeon. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222:10–8.CrossRef Bai X, Zhang Q, Gao S, Lou J, Li G, Zhang Y, et al. Duct-to-mucosa vs invagination for pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial from a single surgeon. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222:10–8.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Agha RA, Borrelli MR, Vella-Baldacchino M, Thavayogan R, Orgill DP, Pagano D, et al. The STROCSS statement: strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery. Int J Surg. 2017;46:198–202.CrossRef Agha RA, Borrelli MR, Vella-Baldacchino M, Thavayogan R, Orgill DP, Pagano D, et al. The STROCSS statement: strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery. Int J Surg. 2017;46:198–202.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference McMillan MT, Zureikat AH, Hogg ME, Kowalsky SJ, Zeh HJ, Sprys MH, et al. A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic vs open pancreatoduodenectomy on incidence of pancreatic fistula. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:327–35.CrossRef McMillan MT, Zureikat AH, Hogg ME, Kowalsky SJ, Zeh HJ, Sprys MH, et al. A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic vs open pancreatoduodenectomy on incidence of pancreatic fistula. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:327–35.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Malleo G, Bassi C. Pancreas: reconstruction methods after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013:445–6. Malleo G, Bassi C. Pancreas: reconstruction methods after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013:445–6.
13.
go back to reference Clavien PA, Barkun J, De Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The clavien-dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009:187–96. Clavien PA, Barkun J, De Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The clavien-dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009:187–96.
14.
go back to reference Jang JY, Chang YR, Kim SW, Choi SH, Park SJ, Lee SE, et al. Randomized multicentre trial comparing external and internal pancreatic stenting during pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2016;103:668–75.CrossRef Jang JY, Chang YR, Kim SW, Choi SH, Park SJ, Lee SE, et al. Randomized multicentre trial comparing external and internal pancreatic stenting during pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2016;103:668–75.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference El Nakeeb A, El Sorogy M, Salem A, Said R, El Dosoky M, Moneer A, et al. Surgical outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy in young patients: a case series. Int J Surg. 2017;44:287–94.CrossRef El Nakeeb A, El Sorogy M, Salem A, Said R, El Dosoky M, Moneer A, et al. Surgical outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy in young patients: a case series. Int J Surg. 2017;44:287–94.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Gleeson EM, Shaikh MF, Shewokis PA, Clarke JR, Meyers WC, Pitt HA, et al. WHipple-ABACUS, a simple, validated risk score for 30-day mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy developed using the ACS-NSQIP database. Surgery. 2016:1279–87. Gleeson EM, Shaikh MF, Shewokis PA, Clarke JR, Meyers WC, Pitt HA, et al. WHipple-ABACUS, a simple, validated risk score for 30-day mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy developed using the ACS-NSQIP database. Surgery. 2016:1279–87.
17.
go back to reference Liu QY, Zhang WZ, Xia HT, Leng JJ, Wan T, Liang B, et al. Analysis of risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:17491–7.CrossRef Liu QY, Zhang WZ, Xia HT, Leng JJ, Wan T, Liang B, et al. Analysis of risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:17491–7.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Shrikhande SV, Sivasanker M, Vollmer CM, Friess H, Besselink MG, Fingerhut A, et al. Pancreatic anastomosis after pancreatoduodenectomy: a position statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2017:1221–34. Shrikhande SV, Sivasanker M, Vollmer CM, Friess H, Besselink MG, Fingerhut A, et al. Pancreatic anastomosis after pancreatoduodenectomy: a position statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2017:1221–34.
19.
go back to reference Bartoli E, Rebibo L, Robert B, Fumery M, Delcenserie R, Regimbeau JM. Efficacy of the double-pigtail stent as a conservative treatment for grade B pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatogastric anastomosis. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2014;28:1528–34.CrossRef Bartoli E, Rebibo L, Robert B, Fumery M, Delcenserie R, Regimbeau JM. Efficacy of the double-pigtail stent as a conservative treatment for grade B pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatogastric anastomosis. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2014;28:1528–34.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Peng SY, Wang JW, Lau WY, Cai XJ, Mou YP, Bin LY, et al. Conventional versus binding pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2007;245:692–8.CrossRef Peng SY, Wang JW, Lau WY, Cai XJ, Mou YP, Bin LY, et al. Conventional versus binding pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2007;245:692–8.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Casadei R, Ricci C, Silvestri S, Campra D, Ercolani G, D’Ambra M, et al. Peng’s binding pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. An Italian, prospective, dual-institution study. Pancreatology. 2013;13:305–9.CrossRef Casadei R, Ricci C, Silvestri S, Campra D, Ercolani G, D’Ambra M, et al. Peng’s binding pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. An Italian, prospective, dual-institution study. Pancreatology. 2013;13:305–9.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Feng J, Chen YL, Dong JH, Chen MY, Cai SW, Huang ZQ. Post-pancreaticoduodenectomy hemorrhage: risk factors, managements and outcomes. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2014;13:513–22.CrossRef Feng J, Chen YL, Dong JH, Chen MY, Cai SW, Huang ZQ. Post-pancreaticoduodenectomy hemorrhage: risk factors, managements and outcomes. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2014;13:513–22.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Zhang S, Lan Z, Zhang J, Chen Y, Xu Q, Jiang Q, et al. Duct-to-mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8:46449–60.PubMedPubMedCentral Zhang S, Lan Z, Zhang J, Chen Y, Xu Q, Jiang Q, et al. Duct-to-mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8:46449–60.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Bitsakou G, Frampton AE, Pai M, Jiao LR. An alternative pancreatic anastomosis following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Arch Surg. 2011;146:752–4.CrossRef Bitsakou G, Frampton AE, Pai M, Jiao LR. An alternative pancreatic anastomosis following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Arch Surg. 2011;146:752–4.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Rungsakulkij N, Mingphruedhi S, Tangtawee P, Krutsri C, Muangkaew P, Suragul W, et al. Risk factors for pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective study in a Thai tertiary center. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;9:270–80.CrossRef Rungsakulkij N, Mingphruedhi S, Tangtawee P, Krutsri C, Muangkaew P, Suragul W, et al. Risk factors for pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective study in a Thai tertiary center. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;9:270–80.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Babyak MA. What you see may not be what you get: a brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosom Med. 2004;66:411–21.PubMed Babyak MA. What you see may not be what you get: a brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosom Med. 2004;66:411–21.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Modified duct-to-mucosa versus conventional pancreaticoenterostomy for pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective cohort study based on propensity score matching analysis
Publication date
01-12-2019
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7819
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-018-1557-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

World Journal of Surgical Oncology 1/2019 Go to the issue