Internal Versus External Drainage With a Pancreatic Duct Stent For Pancreaticojejunostomy During Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Patients at High Risk for Pancreatic Fistula: A Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine whether internal or external drainage with a pancreatic duct stent is the optimal pancreaticojejunostomy method to prevent pancreatic fistula (PF) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for subgroups of patients at high risk for PF.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

A total of 495 patients who underwent PD were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify risk factors for PF after PD. We further compared the incidence of PF and outcomes between the internal and external drainage groups for subgroups of patients at high risk for PF.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the incidence of complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification or the rate of PF after PD in both groups (P = 0.961 and P = 0.505, respectively). The incidence of mortality was 3.8% in the internal drainage group and 3.9% in the external drainage group (P = 0.980). Univariate and multivariate analyses identified male gender (odds ratio [OR] = 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.78-4.83; P = 0.000), pancreatic duct diameter (<3 mm) (OR = 2.58; 95% CI, 1.57-4.23; P = 0.000), and soft pancreatic texture (OR = 2.92; 95% CI, 1.71-4.98; P = 0.000) as independent risk factors for PF after PD. No differences in the incidence of PF for the subgroups of patients with one, two, or three risk factors were observed between the internal and external drainage groups (P = 0.334, P = 1.000, and P = 0.936, respectively). No differences in total complications, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, biliary fistula, infection complications, reoperation, perioperative mortality, or postoperative hospital stay were noted. In addition, liquid loss and tube-related complications occurred in the external drainage group.

CONCLUSIONS

Internal drainage is the optimal method to prevent PF after PD for subgroups of patients at high risk for PF because the surgical procedure is simple and prevents liquid loss and tube-related complications associated with external drainage. However, no differences in the incidence of PF and other complications after PD were observed between the two approaches.