Number of acinar cells at the pancreatic stump predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy
- 35 Downloads
Abstract
Purpose
To establish if the number of pancreatic acinar cells at the pancreatic cut end is a predictor of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).
Methods
The number of acinar cells was assessed histologically in 121 consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) between April, 2012 and July, 2016.
Results
POPF developed in 23 of the 121 patients. Univariate analysis revealed that male sex, long operating time, high volume of blood loss, soft remnant pancreas, large pancreatic duct, and the number of pancreatic acinar cells were significantly associated with POPF. Multivariate analysis revealed that male sex (p = 0.022) and the number of pancreatic acinar cells (p < 0.0001) were independently associated with POPF. In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the area under curve was 0.83895 when the cut off value of the number of pancreatic acinar cells to predict POPF was 890. Sensitivity and specificity of the number of pancreatic acinar cells were 82.6 and 77.6%, respectively.
Conclusions
A large number of pancreatic acinar cells at the cut end of the stump is predictive of POPF after PD. Although POPF is associated with multiple factors and the number of acinar cells is only one of these, our study is the first to confirm this common intuition of surgeons, which has not been assessed definitively before.
Keywords
Pancreaticoduodenectomy Postoperative pancreatic fistula Pancreatic acinar cellsNotes
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
No financial support was received for this study. We report no proprietary or commercial interest in any product mentioned or concept discussed in this article.
References
- 1.Miyata H, Gotoh M, Hirai I, Kenjo A, Kitagawa Y, Shimada M, et al. A pancreaticoduodenectomy risk model derived from 8575 cases from a national single-race population (Japanese) using a web-based data entry system: the 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2014;259:773–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.Hirono S, Murakami Y, Tani M, Kawai M, Okada K, Uemura K, et al. Identification of risk factors for pancreatic exocrine insufficiency after pancreaticoduodenectomy using a 13C-labeled mixed triglyceride breath test. World J Surg. 2015;39:516–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Motoi F, Egawa S, Rikiyama T, Katayose Y, Unno M. Randomized clinical trial of external stent drainage of the pancreatic duct to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticojejunostomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99:524–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Aoki S, Miyata H, Konno H, Gotoh M, Motoi F, Kumamaru H, et al. Risk factors of serious postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy and risk calculators for predicting postoperative complications: a nationwide study of 17,564 patients in Japan. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2017;24:243–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 5.Krautz C, Nimptsch U, Weber G, Mansky T, Grützmann. R Effect of hospital volume on in-hospital morbidity and mortality following pancreatic surgery in Germany. Ann Surg. 2017 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
- 6.Otsubo T, Kobayashi S, Sano K, Misawa T, Ota T, Katagiri S, et al. Safety-related outcomes of the Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery board certification system for expert surgeons. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2017;24:252–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Satoi S, Yamamoto T, Yoshitomi H, Motoi F, Kawai M, Fujii T, et al. Developing better practices at the institutional level leads to better outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy in 3,378 patients: domestic audit of the Japanese Society of Pancreatic Surgery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2017;24:501–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Hashimoto D, Chikamoto A, Harimoto N, Ikegami T, Uchiyama H, Yoshizumi T, et al. A comparative study on the complications of conventional and end-to-side inserting pancreatojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Today. 2017;47:238–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Machado M, Machado M. Systematic use of isolated pancreatic anastomosis after pancreatoduodenectomy: five years of experience with zero mortality. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:1584–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.McMillan M, Malleo G, Bassi C, Allegrini V, Casetti L, Drebin J, et al. Multicenter, prospective trial of selective drain management for pancreatoduodenectomy using risk stratification. Ann Surg. 2017;265:1209–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Relles D, Burkhart R, Pucci M, Sendecki J, Tholey R, Drueding R, et al. Does resident experience affect outcomes in complex abdominal surgery? Pancreaticoduodenectomy as an example. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:279–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Hashimoto D, Chikamoto A, Ohmuraya M, Hirota M, Baba H. Pancreaticodigestive anastomosis and the postoperative management strategies to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula formation after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Today. 2014;44:1207–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Kawai M, Tani M, Hirono S, Miyazawa M, Shimizu A, Uchiyama K, et al. Pylorus ring resection reduces delayed gastric emptying in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial of pylorus-resecting versus pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2011;253:495–501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Low J, Shukla A, Thorn. P Pancreatic acinar cell: new insights into the control of secretion. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2010;42:1586–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Stockhausen KT. Declaration of Helsinki: revising ethical research guidelines for the 21st century. Med J Aust. 2000;172:252–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Dale O, Salo M. The Helsinki Declaration, research guidelines and regulations: present and future editorial aspects. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1996;40:771–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Clavien P, Barkun J, de Oliveira M, Vauthey J, Dindo D, Schulick R, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Japan Pancreas Society. General rules for the study of pancreatic cancer (the 6th edition). 2009.Google Scholar
- 19.Japan Pancreas Society. General rules for the study of pancreatic cancer (the 7th edition). 2016.Google Scholar
- 20.Japanese society of biliary surgery Society. General rules for surgical and pathological studies on cancer of the biliary tract (the 5th ed.). 2003.Google Scholar
- 21.Japanese society of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery. General rules for surgical and pathological studies on cancer of the biliary tract (the 6th ed.). 2013.Google Scholar
- 22.Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After. Surgery. 2017;161:584–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.DeOliveira M, Winter J, Schafer M, Cunningham S, Cameron J, Yeo C, et al. Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2006;244:931–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.Tani M, Kawai M, Hirono S, Hatori T, Imaizumi T, Nakao A, et al. Use of omentum or falciform ligament does not decrease complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: nationwide survey of the Japanese Society of Pancreatic Surgery. Surgery. 2012;151:183–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Kawai M, Yamaue. H Analysis of clinical trials evaluating complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a new era of pancreatic surgery. Surg Today. 2010;40:1011–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Nordback I, Räty S, Laukkarinen J, Järvinen S, Piironen A, Leppiniemi J, et al. A novel radiopaque biodegradable stent for pancreatobiliary applications–the first human phase I trial in the pancreas. Pancreatology. 2012;12:264–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Sugiura T, Mizuno T, Okamura Y, Ito T, Yamamoto Y, Kawamura I, et al. Impact of bacterial contamination of the abdominal cavity during pancreaticoduodenectomy on surgical-site infection. Br J Surg. 2015;102:1561–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Okano K, Kakinoki K, Suto H, Oshima M, Kashiwagi H, Yamamoto N, et al. Persisting ratio of total amylase output in drain fluid can predict postoperative clinical pancreatic fistula. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2011;18:815–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Yoshida H, Yamashita Y, Shimazu T, Cosatto E, Kiyuna T, Taniguchi H, et al. Automated histological classification of whole slide images of colorectal biopsy specimens. Oncotarget. 2017;8:90719–29.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 30.Lin JW, Cameron JL, Yeo CJ, Riall TS, Lillemoe KD. Risk factors and outcomes in post pancreaticoduodenectomy pancreaticocutaneous fistula. J Gastrointest Surg. 2004;8:951–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Fujii T, Kanda M, Nagai S, Suenaga M, Takami H, Yamada S, et al. Excess weight adversely influences treatment length of postoperative pancreatic fistula: a retrospective study of 900 patients. Pancreas. 2015;44:971–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Fujii T, Sugimoto H, Yamada S, Kanda M, Suenaga M, Takami H, et al. Modified Blumgart anastomosis for pancreaticojejunostomy: technical improvement in matched historical control study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:1108–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Kawai M, Hirono S, Okada K, Sho M, Nakajima Y, Eguchi H, et al. Randomized controlled trial of pancreaticojejunostomy versus stapler closure of the pancreatic stump during distal pancreatectomy to reduce pancreatic fistula. Ann Surg. 2016;264:180–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar