World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025
Comparison of three reconstruction techniques performed after pancreaticoduodenectomy: Using external, internal, or no stent.
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.
Jiménez-Romero Carlos, Marcacuzco-Quinto Alejandro, Caso-Maestro Oscar, Alonso Laura, Fernández-Fernández Clara, Justo Iago
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most frequent cause of morbimortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy, but the best technique to use to prevent its development is unclear. The choice of drainage method external duct stent (EDS), internal duct stent (IDS), or non-ductal stent (NDS) is also controversial.
AIM: To compare the three groups (EDS, IDS and NDS), analyzing the patient characteristics, perioperative examinations and survival.
METHODS: Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy and pancreaticojejunostomy between 2012 and 2020, were divided into the EDS, IDS and NDS groups.
RESULTS: Of the 244 patients included, 129 were in the EDS group, 71 in the IDS group, and 44 in the NDS group. Except for preoperative pancreatitis in the NDS patients, comorbidities were similar among the groups. Patients in the NDS group had a high caliber of the Wirsung duct and frequently presented with a hard pancreas (P < 0.001). A lower rate of grade C POPF was observed in the EDS (1.6%) compared to the NDS (9.1%) and IDS group (14.1%) (P = 0.009). The groups showed similar findings for delayed gastric emptying, postoperative hemorrhage, reoperation, and 5-year survivals. Ninety-day mortality rate was significantly higher in the IDS group (5.6%) compared to the EDS (1.6%) and NDS (4.5%) groups (P = 0.046). Multivariate analysis showed that the use of EDS was a protective factor for grade B/C POPF (P = 0.034), and 90-day mortality (P = 0.018). Additionally, a Wirsung duct diameter < 3 mm was the only risk factor for grade B/C POPF (P = 0.001), and 90-day mortality (P = 0.031).
CONCLUSION: The use of the EDS was a protective factor for grade B/C POPF and 90-day mortality, and the Wirsung duct < 3 mm was a risk factor for grade B/C POPF and 90-day mortality.
AIM: To compare the three groups (EDS, IDS and NDS), analyzing the patient characteristics, perioperative examinations and survival.
METHODS: Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy and pancreaticojejunostomy between 2012 and 2020, were divided into the EDS, IDS and NDS groups.
RESULTS: Of the 244 patients included, 129 were in the EDS group, 71 in the IDS group, and 44 in the NDS group. Except for preoperative pancreatitis in the NDS patients, comorbidities were similar among the groups. Patients in the NDS group had a high caliber of the Wirsung duct and frequently presented with a hard pancreas (P < 0.001). A lower rate of grade C POPF was observed in the EDS (1.6%) compared to the NDS (9.1%) and IDS group (14.1%) (P = 0.009). The groups showed similar findings for delayed gastric emptying, postoperative hemorrhage, reoperation, and 5-year survivals. Ninety-day mortality rate was significantly higher in the IDS group (5.6%) compared to the EDS (1.6%) and NDS (4.5%) groups (P = 0.046). Multivariate analysis showed that the use of EDS was a protective factor for grade B/C POPF (P = 0.034), and 90-day mortality (P = 0.018). Additionally, a Wirsung duct diameter < 3 mm was the only risk factor for grade B/C POPF (P = 0.001), and 90-day mortality (P = 0.031).
CONCLUSION: The use of the EDS was a protective factor for grade B/C POPF and 90-day mortality, and the Wirsung duct < 3 mm was a risk factor for grade B/C POPF and 90-day mortality.