Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery

, Volume 395, Issue 3, pp 195–200 | Cite as

Does internal stenting of the pancreaticojejunostomy improve outcomes after pancreatoduodenectomy? A prospective study

  • Vassilios Smyrniotis
  • Nikolaos Arkadopoulos
  • Maria A. Kyriazi
  • Michael Derpapas
  • Theodosios Theodosopoulos
  • Constantinos Gennatas
  • Agathi Kondi-Paphiti
  • Ioannis Vassiliou
Controlled Prospective Clinical Trials



This study’s aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of using an internal stent when fashioning a duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy on preventing pancreatic fistula formation, as well as on the overall outcome for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Materials and methods

Between January 2000 and December 2008, 82 consecutive patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy and duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy in an isolated jejunal loop, either with or without the aid of an internal stent. The allocation of the patients into group A (n = 41, stented anastomosis) and group B (n = 41, unstented anastomosis) was performed in a strictly alternating way. No statistically significant differences were identified between the two groups regarding age, sex, operative time, intraoperative pathological findings, and comorbidities. The two groups were compared regarding the rate of pancreatic fistula formation, postoperative complications, and hospital stay.


In group A, pancreatic fistula formation rate was 4.9%; overall morbidity reached 30%; and hospital stay duration was 13 ± 4 days. In group B, pancreatic fistula formation rate was 2.4%; overall morbidity was 26%; and hospital stay duration extended to 14 ± 5. According to Clavien’s classification, the severity of surgical complications was designated as follows: for group A, 56% of the complications were allocated as grade I, 38% grade II, 4% grade III, 2.5% grade IV, and 0% grade V. The relative values for group B were 53%, 42%, 3%, 2%, and 0%, respectively. In six group A patients (14.7%), the internal stent was found stuck in the pancreatic stump, causing severe back pain requiring analgesic treatment with opioids for four of them. In group B, four patients (9.7%) complained of mild back pain, none of which required regular treatment. No mortalities were recorded in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups regarding fistula formation and severity of complications.


Internal stenting of a duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy does not diminish the rate of pancreatic fistula formation or alter overall patient’s outcome.


Internal anastomotic stenting Pancreaticojejunostomy Pancreaticoduodenectomy Pancreatic fistula Pancreatic cancer 


  1. 1.
    Grobmyer SR, Rivadeneira DE, Goodman CA et al (2000) Pancreatic anastomotic failure after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 180:117–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gouma DJ, van Geenen RC, van Gulik TM et al (2000) Rates of complications and death after pancreaticoduodenectomy: risk factors and the impact of hospital volume. Ann Surg 232:786–795CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Okamoto A, Tsuruta K (2000) Fistulation methods: simple and safe pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery 127:433–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Imaizumi T, Hatori T, Tobita K et al (2006) Pancreaticojejunostomy using duct-to-mucosa anastomosis without a stenting tube. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 13:194–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tani M, Onishi H, Kinoshita H et al (2005) The evaluation of duct-to-mucosal pancreaticojejunostomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Surg 29:76–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Watanabe M, Usui S, Kajiwara H et al (2004) Current pancreatogastrointestinal anastomotic methods: results of a Japanese survey of 3109 patients. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 11:25–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA et al (2006) Does pancreatic duct stenting decrease the rate of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized trial. J Gastrointest Surg 10:1280–1290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Sohn TA et al (1997) Six hundred fifty consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies in the 1990s. Pathology, complications and outcomes. Ann Surg 226:248–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tani M, Kawai M, Teresawa H et al (2005) Complication with reconstruction procedure in pylorus-preserving pancreaticojejunostomy. World J Surg 29:881–884CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adam U, Makowiec F, Riediger H et al (2004) Risk factors for complications after pancreatic head resection. Am J Surg 187:201–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tran KTC, Smeenk HG, van Eijck CHJ et al (2004) Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy versus standard Whipple procedure: a prospective randomized, multicenter analysis of 170 patients with pancreatic and periampullary tumours. Ann Surg 240:738–745CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suzuki S, Kaji S, Koike N et al (2009) Pancreaticojejunostomy of duct to mucosa anastomosis can be performed more safely without than with a stenting tube. Am J Surg 198:51–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Strasberg SM, Drebin JA, Mokadam NA et al (2002) Prospective trial of a blood supply-based technique of pancreaticojejunostomy; effect on anastomotic failure in the Whipple procedure. Am Coll Surg 194:746–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, Neoptolemos J, Sarr M, Traverso W, Buchler M (2005) International Study Group on pancreatic fistula definition. Surgery 138(1):8–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM (1992) Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 111:518–526PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strasberg SM, Linehan DC, Clavien PA (2007) Proposal for definition and severity grading of pancreatic anastomosis failure and pancreatic occlusion failure. Surgery. 141:420–426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roder JD, Stein HJ, Bottcher KA et al (1999) Stented versus nonstented pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy: a prospective study. Ann Surg 229:41–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poon RT, Fan ST, Lo CM, Ng KK, Yuen WK, Yeung C, Wong J (2007) External drainage of pancreatic duct with a stent to reduce leakage rate of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 246(3):425–433 discussion 433–435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kawai M, Tani M, Teresawa H et al (2006) Early removal of prophylactic drains reduces the risk of intra-abdominal infections in patients with pancreatic head resection. Ann Surg 244:1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pessaux P, Msika S, Atalla D et al (2003) Risk factors for postoperative infectious complications in non-colorectal abdominal surgery: a multivariate analysis based on a prospective multicenter study of 4718 patients. Arch Surg 138:314–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shinchi H, Wada K, Traverso LW (2006) The usefulness of drain data to identify a clinically relevant pancreatic anastomotic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy? J Gastrointest Surg 10:490–498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kakita A, Yoshida M, Takahashi T (2001) History of pancreaticojejunostomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Development of a more reliable anastomosis technique. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 8:883–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vassilios Smyrniotis
    • 1
  • Nikolaos Arkadopoulos
    • 2
  • Maria A. Kyriazi
    • 2
  • Michael Derpapas
    • 2
  • Theodosios Theodosopoulos
    • 2
  • Constantinos Gennatas
    • 4
  • Agathi Kondi-Paphiti
    • 3
  • Ioannis Vassiliou
    • 2
  1. 1.5th Department of Surgery, Areteion HospitalUniversity of Athens Medical SchoolAthensGreece
  2. 2.2nd Department of Surgery, Areteion HospitalUniversity of Athens Medical SchoolAthensGreece
  3. 3.Department of Pathology, Areteion HospitalUniversity of Athens Medical SchoolAthensGreece
  4. 4.Department of Oncology, Areteion HospitalUniversity of Athens Medical SchoolAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations