Journals / Eurasian Journal of Medicine / 2021 / Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of Two Pancreatic Anastomosis Techniques in terms of Postoperative Complications After Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Pages
192–196
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: The evidence from this retrospective study suggests that there is no difference between the two types of pancreatic anastomosis techniques (PJ or PG) in terms of the rate of postoperative complications.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: In this retrospective study, we compared the postoperative complications by using both the Clavien–Dindo classification and the Revised 2016 International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) classification methods after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) and pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) were performed on 41 and 40 patients, respectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The evidence from this retrospective study suggests that there is no difference between the two types of pancreatic anastomosis techniques (PJ or PG) in terms of the rate of postoperative complications.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: In this retrospective study, we compared the postoperative complications by using both the Clavien–Dindo classification and the Revised 2016 International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) classification methods after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Materials and Methods: The data of patients were retrospectively reviewed. Pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) and pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) were performed on 41 and 40 patients, respectively. The patients were assigned into two groups for anastomosis types and compared with each other according to postoperative complications. The postoperative follow-up period of the patients was limited to 90 days. Results: No significant difference was detected between the two groups in terms of gender (P = .581) and age (P = .809). According to the Clavien–Dindo classification system, grade 1 complication rates were 29.3% and 35.0% in PJ and PG groups, respectively. Also, grade 2 complication rates were 34.1% and 32.5% in PJ and PG groups, respectively. Besides, grade 3B complication rates were 9.8% and 17.5% in PJ and PG groups, respectively. No grade 3A, grade 4A, and grade 4B complications were detected in both groups. But, grade 5 complications rates were 2.4% and 5.0% in PJ and PG groups, respectively. Based on the ISGPS classification system, the pancreatic fistulas were classified. The biochemical leak rates were calculated as 26.8% and 37.5% in PJ and PG groups, respectively. The rates were 14.6% and 10% in PJ and PG groups, respectively, for grade B complications. Also, grade C complication rates were 9.75% and 12.5% in PJ and PG groups, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups for postoperative complications. Conclusion: The evidence from this retrospective study suggests that there is no difference between the two types of pancreatic anastomosis techniques (PJ or PG) in terms of the rate of postoperative complications.

🔖

Cite This Article

YOLOĞLU, S., YILMAZ, S., DİRİCAN, A., KOÇ, S., ARA, C., SOYER, V. (2022). Comparison of Two Pancreatic Anastomosis Techniques in terms of Postoperative Complications After Pancreaticoduodenectomy. Eurasian Journal of Medicine, Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 3, 192–196. https://ajindex.com/articles/508813

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Topal B, Fieuws S, Aerts R, et al. Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: A multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):655-662. [Crossref] 2. Ho C-K, Kleeff J, Friess H, Büchler MW. Complications of pancreatic surgery. HPB (Oxford) 2005;7(2):99-108. [Crossref] 3. Pratt WB, Maithel SK, Vanounou T, Huang ZS, Callery MP, Vollmer CM. Clinical and economic validation of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) classification scheme. Ann Surg. 2007;245(3):443-451. [Crossref] 4. Topal B, Aerts R, Hendrickx T, Fieuws S, Penninckx F. Determinants of complications in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33(4):488-492. [Crossref] 5. Kawaida H, Kono H, Hosomura N, et al. Surgical techniques and postoperative management to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery. World J Gastroenterol. 2019;25(28):3722-3737. [Crossref] 6. Kwon J, Shin SH, Lee S, et al. The effect of fibrinogen/thrombin-coated collagen patch (TachoSil®) application in pancreaticojejunostomy for prevention of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A randomized clinical trial. World J Surg. 2019;43(12):3128-3137. [Crossref] 7. Shen Y, Jin W. Reconstruction by pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy following pancreaticoduodenectomy:Ameta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012;2012:1-7. [Crossref] 8. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg. 2004;240 (2):205-213. [Crossref] 9. Crippa S, Cirocchi R, Randolph J, et al. Pancreaticojejunostomy is comparable to pancreaticogastrostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2016;401 (4):427-437. Available from: http://link.springer. com/10.1007/s00423-016-1418-z 10. Fatih O, Adil B, Cengiz A, et al. No mortality or pancreatic fistula after full-thickness suture Pancreaticogastrostomy in 39 patients who underwent Pancreaticoduodenectomy. Int Surg. 2015;100(2):275-280. [Crossref] 11. Walt AJ. Commentary. In: Ivatury RR, Gayten GG, editors. Textbook of penetrating trauma. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1996.641-642. 12. Aroori S, Puneet P, Bramhall SR, et al. Outcomes comparing a pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) and a pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) after a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). HPB (Oxford). 2011;13(10):723-731. [Crossref