Published in:
01-01-2020 | Obesity | 2019 SSAT Plenary Presentation
Pancreatic Head Resection Following Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Operative Considerations and Outcomes
Authors:
M. T. Trudeau, L. Maggino, B. L. Ecker, C. M. Vollmer, the Pancreatic Head Resection after Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Study Group
Published in:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
|
Issue 1/2020
Login to get access
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.