Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2022
Prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy: results of a Canadian RAND/UCLA appropriateness expert panel.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hallet Julie, Theodosopoulos Evangelia, Abou-Khalil Jad, Bertens Kimberley, Pelletier Jean-Sébastien, Segedi Maja, Ouellet Jean-François, Barkun Jeffrey, Coburn Natalie, Canadian Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association working group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We aimed to define the appropriateness of interventions for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) after pancreatectomy, given the lack of consistent data on this topic.
METHODS: Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, we assembled an expert panel to rate clinical scenarios for interventions to prevent POPF after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).
RESULTS: The following interventions were rated appropriate: individualized risk prediction for all patients; perioperative pasireotide administration for patients undergoing PD who have a soft pancreatic gland and a pancreatic duct size of less 3 mm and for patients undergoing DP; pancreaticogastrostomy for patients undergoing PD who have a soft pancreatic gland and pancreaticojejunostomy for PD for patients with a pancreatic duct size of 6 mm or greater regardless of pancreatic gland texture; duct-to-mucosa anastomosis for all patients undergoing PD and dunking anastomosis for patients undergoing PD who have a pancreatic duct size of less than 3 mm with a firm pancreatic gland; simple stapled and reinforced stapled transection for all DP; surgical drains for PD and DP in patients with a soft pancreatic gland; and open and minimally invasive surgery for DP and open surgery for PD. The following were rated inappropriate: gastrointestinal anastomosis for stump closure in all DP and omission of surgical drain in PD for patients with a pancreatic duct diameter less than 3 mm and a soft pancreatic gland.
CONCLUSION: The expert panel identified appropriate and inappropriate scenarios for POPF prevention following pancreatectomy, to provide guidance to clinicians. However, the appropriateness of the interventions in the majority of the clinical scenarios was rated as uncertain, demonstrating equipoise.
METHODS: Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, we assembled an expert panel to rate clinical scenarios for interventions to prevent POPF after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).
RESULTS: The following interventions were rated appropriate: individualized risk prediction for all patients; perioperative pasireotide administration for patients undergoing PD who have a soft pancreatic gland and a pancreatic duct size of less 3 mm and for patients undergoing DP; pancreaticogastrostomy for patients undergoing PD who have a soft pancreatic gland and pancreaticojejunostomy for PD for patients with a pancreatic duct size of 6 mm or greater regardless of pancreatic gland texture; duct-to-mucosa anastomosis for all patients undergoing PD and dunking anastomosis for patients undergoing PD who have a pancreatic duct size of less than 3 mm with a firm pancreatic gland; simple stapled and reinforced stapled transection for all DP; surgical drains for PD and DP in patients with a soft pancreatic gland; and open and minimally invasive surgery for DP and open surgery for PD. The following were rated inappropriate: gastrointestinal anastomosis for stump closure in all DP and omission of surgical drain in PD for patients with a pancreatic duct diameter less than 3 mm and a soft pancreatic gland.
CONCLUSION: The expert panel identified appropriate and inappropriate scenarios for POPF prevention following pancreatectomy, to provide guidance to clinicians. However, the appropriateness of the interventions in the majority of the clinical scenarios was rated as uncertain, demonstrating equipoise.