Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Pancreatogastrostomy Vs. Pancreatojejunostomy: a Risk-Stratified Analysis of 5316 Pancreatoduodenectomies

  • 2017 SSAT Plenary Presentation
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery Aims and scope

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Abbreviations

ACB:

Average Complication Burden

CR-POPF:

clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula

FRS:

Fistula Risk Score

ISGPF:

International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula

IQR:

interquartile range

OR:

odds ratio

PD:

pancreatoduodenectomy

PMI:

Postoperative Morbidity Index

POPF:

postoperative pancreatic fistula

RCT:

randomized controlled trial

References

  1. Pratt WB, Maithel SK, Vanounou T, Huang ZS, Callery MP, Vollmer CM, Jr. Clinical and economic validation of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) classification scheme. Ann Surg. 2007; 245(3):443–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000251708.70219.d2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. McMillan MT, Vollmer CM, Jr., Asbun HJ, Ball CG, Bassi C, Beane JD et al. The Characterization and Prediction of ISGPF Grade C Fistulas Following Pancreatoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016; 20(2):262–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-015-2884-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Crist DW, Sitzmann JV, Cameron JL. Improved hospital morbidity, mortality, and survival after the Whipple procedure. Ann Surg. 1987; 206(3):358–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. McMillan MT, Soi S, Asbun HJ, Ball CG, Bassi C, Beane JD et al. Risk-adjusted Outcomes of Clinically Relevant Pancreatic Fistula Following Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Model for Performance Evaluation. Ann Surg. 2016; 264(2):344–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001537.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005; 138(1):8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2005.05.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Topal B, Fieuws S, Aerts R, Weerts J, Feryn T, Roeyen G et al. Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14(7):655–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045 (13)70126-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Keck T, Wellner UF, Bahra M, Klein F, Sick O, Niedergethmann M et al. Pancreatogastrostomy Versus Pancreatojejunostomy for RECOnstruction After PANCreatoduodenectomy (RECOPANC, DRKS 00000767): Perioperative and Long-term Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg. 2016; 263(3):440–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001240.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Fernandez-Cruz L, Cosa R, Blanco L, Lopez-Boado MA, Astudillo E. Pancreatogastrostomy with gastric partition after pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy versus conventional pancreatojejunostomy: a prospective randomized study. Ann Surg. 2008; 248(6):930–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31818fefc7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Figueras J, Sabater L, Planellas P, Munoz-Forner E, Lopez-Ben S, Falgueras L et al. Randomized clinical trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy on the rate and severity of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2013; 100 (12):1597–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs. 9252.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wellner UF, Sick O, Olschewski M, Adam U, Hopt UT, Keck T. Randomized controlled single-center trial comparing pancreatogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after partial pancreatoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012; 16(9):1686–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-1940-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McMillan MT, Malleo G, Bassi C, Sprys MH, Vollmer CM, Jr. Defining the practice of pancreatoduodenectomy around the world. HPB (Oxford). 2015; 17 (12):1145–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/hpb. 12475.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Miller BC, Christein JD, Behrman SW, Drebin JA, Pratt WB, Callery MP et al. A multi-institutional external validation of the fistula risk score for pancreatoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014; 18(1):172–79; discussion 9-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-013-2337-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shubert CR, Wagie AE, Farnell MB, Nagorney DM, Que FG, Reid Lombardo KM et al. Clinical Risk Score to Predict Pancreatic Fistula after Pancreatoduodenectomy: Independent External Validation for Open and Laparoscopic Approaches. J Am Coll Surg. 2015; 221(3):689–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg. 2015.05.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McMillan MT, Christein JD, Callery MP, Behrman SW, Drebin JA, Kent TS et al. Prophylactic octreotide for pancreatoduodenectomy: more harm than good? HPB (Oxford). 2014; 16 (10):954–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/hpb. 12314.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. McMillan MT, Fisher WE, Van Buren G, 2nd, Mc Elhany A, Bloomston M, Hughes SJ et al. The value of drains as a fistula mitigation strategy for pancreatoduodenectomy: something for everyone? Results of a randomized prospective multi-institutional study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015; 19(1):21–30; discussion -1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-014-2640-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McMillan MT, Ecker BL, Behrman SW, Callery MP, Christein JD, Drebin JA et al. Externalized Stents for Pancreatoduodenectomy Provide Value Only in High-Risk Scenarios. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-016-3289-6.

  17. Sachs TE, Pratt WB, Kent TS, Callery MP, Vollmer CM, Jr. The pancreaticojejunal anastomotic stent: friend or foe? Surgery. 2013;153(5):651–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2012.11.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, Chaikof EL, Vollmer CM, Jr. A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013; 216(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.09.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pratt WB, Callery MP, Vollmer CM, Jr. Risk prediction for development of pancreatic fistula using the ISGPF classification scheme. World J Surg. 2008; 32(3):419–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-007-9388-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Porembka MR, Hall BL, Hirbe M, Strasberg SM. Quantitative weighting of postoperative complications based on the accordion severity grading system: demonstration of potential impact using the american college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program. J Am Coll Surg. 2010; 210(3):286–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg. 2009.12.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Strasberg SM, Hall BL. Postoperative morbidity index: a quantitative measure of severity of postoperative complications. J Am Coll Surg. 2011; 213(5):616–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg. 2011.07.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. McMillan MT, Christein JD, Callery MP, Behrman SW, Drebin JA, Hollis RH et al. Comparing the burden of pancreatic fistulas after pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Surgery. 2016;159(4):1013–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.10.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schmidt CM, Turrini O, Parikh P, House MG, Zyromski NJ, Nakeeb A et al. Effect of hospital volume, surgeon experience, and surgeon volume on patient outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-institution experience. Arch Surg. 2010; 145(7):634–40. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2010.118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Austin PC. An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011; 46(3):399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Sturmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol. 2006; 163 (12):1149–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwj149.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Sjolander A. Propensity scores and M-structures. Stat Med. 2009;28(9):1416–20; author reply 20-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim. 3532.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011;10(2):150–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.433.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vollmer CM, Jr., Lewis RS, Hall BL, Allendorf JD, Beane JD, Behrman SW et al. Establishing a quantitative benchmark for morbidity in pancreatoduodenectomy using ACS-NSQIP, the Accordion Severity Grading System, and the Postoperative Morbidity Index. Ann Surg. 2015;261(3):527–36. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000843.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wellner UF, Keck T. Reply to "Pancreatogastrostomy versus Pancreatojejunostomy Following Pancreatoduodenectomy: Comments on RECOPANC Study". Ann Surg. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001642.

  30. Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, Chang DC, Riall TS, Schulick RD et al. Does pancreatic duct stenting decrease the rate of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized trial. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10(9):1280–90; discussion 90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gassur.2006.07.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

conception/design (BL Ecker, MT McMillan, L Maggino, CM Vollmer); data acquisition (BL Ecker, MT McMillan, JD Beane, ZV Fong, E Haverick); data interpretation (all authors); drafting (BL Ecker, CM Vollmer); critical revisions (all authors); final approval (all authors)

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles M. Vollmer Jr.

Ethics declarations

Meeting Presentations

Presented at (1) the SSAT Residents and Fellows Research Conference, May 6, 2017, Chicago, IL; and (2) the 2017 SSAT Presidential Plenary Presentation, May 7, 2017, Chicago, IL

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 12 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ecker, B.L., McMillan, M.T., Maggino, L. et al. Pancreatogastrostomy Vs. Pancreatojejunostomy: a Risk-Stratified Analysis of 5316 Pancreatoduodenectomies. J Gastrointest Surg 22, 68–76 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3547-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3547-2

Keywords

Navigation