Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 267–274 | Cite as

The Influence of Staple Size on Fistula Formation Following Distal Pancreatectomy

  • Boris Sepesi
  • Jacob Moalem
  • Eva Galka
  • Peter Salzman
  • Luke O Schoeniger
2011 SSAT Poster Presentation

Abstract

Background

Pancreatic fistula continues to be a source of significant morbidity following distal pancreatic resections. The technique of pancreatic division varies widely among surgeons, and there is no evidence that identifies a single method as superior. In our practice, the technique of distal pancreatic resection has evolved from cut-and-sew to stapled technique with green and recently white cartridge. The aim of our study was to evaluate the rate of clinically significant fistulas [International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) grade B or C] following distal pancreatectomy and to identify variables associated with a low rate of fistula development.

Methods

Clinical records of all patients who underwent distal pancreatic resections between February 1999 and July 2010 by a single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed focusing on the incidence and type of pancreatic fistula as defined by ISGPF. Study variables included age, gender, surgical approach, extent of resection, ASA classification, type of stapler cartridge, use of Seamguard™, and ISGPF classification. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact test, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

Results

Sixty-four patients (median age 60, range 21–85; 54% male) underwent distal pancreatic resection (laparoscopy 50% vs. open 50%). The most common indications were pancreatic adenocarcinoma (N = 15; 23%) and neuroendocrine neoplasms (N = 14; 22%). Clinically significant pancreatic fistula developed in 24% (N = 15). The rate of fistula with cut-and-sew technique was 36% (4/11), with stapled green cartridge 31% (9/29) and only 5% (1/21) with stapled vascular cartridge. Univariate logistic regression identified vascular cartridge size (p = 0.04, OR 0.11) and open stapled technique (p = 0.05, OR 0.12) as variables significantly associated with a low fistula rate. Both vascular cartridge size (p = 0.05, OR 0.10) and open stapled technique (p = 0.04, OR 0.08) remained significant when analyzed by multivariate logistic regression. Division of pancreatic parenchyma with vascular cartridges resulted in significantly (p = 0.03, OR 9.0) lower fistula rate compared to green cartridges. The use of Seamguard™ did not affect fistula rate (16% vs. 27%; p = 0.34) nor did the performance of multivisceral resection vs. distal pancreatectomy/splenectomy alone (21% vs. 23%, p = 1.0).

Conclusion

The optimal technique of pancreatic division has not been conclusively established. Dividing the pancreas utilizing vascular (2.5 mm) staple cartridges significantly decreased the rate of clinically significant pancreatic fistula and we have changed our practice accordingly. A prospective randomized trial is necessary to validate these results.

Keywords

Distal pancreatectomy Staple size Pancreatic fistula Seamguard™ Surgical complications Operative technique 

References

  1. 1.
    Ferrone CR, Warshaw AL, Rattner DW, Berger D, Zheng H, Rawal B, et al. Pancreatic fistula rates after 462 distal pancreatectomies: staplers do not decrease fistula rates. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:1691,7; discussion 1697–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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;138:8–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diener MK, Knaebel HP, Witte ST, Rossion I, Kieser M, Buchler MW, et al. DISPACT trial: a randomized controlled trial to compare two different surgical techniques of DIStal PAnCreaTectomy—study rationale and design. Clin Trials 2008;5:534–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruns H, Rahbari NN, Loffler T, Diener MK, Seiler CM, Glanemann M, et al. Perioperative management in distal pancreatectomy: results of a survey in 23 European participating centres of the DISPACT trial and a review of literature. Trials 2009;10:58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harris LJ, Abdollahi H, Newhook T, Sauter PK, Crawford AG, Chojnacki KA, et al. Optimal technical management of stump closure following distal pancreatectomy: a retrospective review of 215 cases. J Gastrointest Surg 2010;14:998–1005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Olah A, Issekutz A, Belagyi T, Hajdu N, Romics L, Jr. Randomized clinical trial of techniques for closure of the pancreatic remnant following distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg 2009;96:602–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Okano K, Kakinoki K, Yachida S, Izuishi K, Wakabayashi H, Suzuki Y. A simple and safe pancreas transection using a stapling device for a distal pancreatectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2008;15:353–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yamamoto M, Hayashi MS, Nguyen NT, Nguyen TD, McCloud S, Imagawa DK. Use of Seamguard to prevent pancreatic leak following distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 2009;144:894–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kitagawa H, Ohta T, Tani T, Tajima H, Nakagawara H, Ohnishi I, et al. Nonclosure technique with saline-coupled bipolar electrocautery in management of the cut surface after distal pancreatectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2008;15:377–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fronza JS, Bentrem DJ, Baker MS, Talamonti MS, Ujiki MB. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy using radiofrequency energy. Am J Surg 2010;199:401,4; discussion 404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hartwig W, Duckheim M, Strobel O, Dovzhanskiy D, Bergmann F, Hackert T, et al. LigaSure for pancreatic sealing during distal pancreatectomy. World J Surg 2010;34:1066–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhou W, Lv R, Wang X, Mou Y, Cai X, Herr I. Stapler vs suture closure of pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis. Am J Surg 2010;200:529–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knaebel HP, Diener MK, Wente MN, Buchler MW, Seiler CM. Systematic review and meta-analysis of technique for closure of the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg 2005;92:539–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fischer CP, Bass B, Fahy B, Aloia T. Transampullary pancreatic duct stenting decreases pancreatic fistula rate following left pancreatectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 2008;55:244–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rieder B, Krampulz D, Adolf J, Pfeiffer A. Endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy and stenting for preoperative prophylaxis of pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:536–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guzman EA, Nelson RA, Kim J, Pigazzi A, Trisal V, Paz B, et al. Increased incidence of pancreatic fistulas after the introduction of a bioabsorbable staple line reinforcement in distal pancreatic resections. Am Surg 2009;75:954–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nakamura M, Ueda J, Kohno H, Aly MY, Takahata S, Shimizu S, et al. Prolonged peri-firing compression with a linear stapler prevents pancreatic fistula in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc 2010.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R Development Core Team (2010). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL:http://www.R-project.org/
  19. 19.
    Abe N, Sugiyama M, Suzuki Y, Yamaguchi T, Mori T, Atomi Y. Preoperative endoscopic pancreatic stenting: a novel prophylactic measure against pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy, J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2008;15(4):373–6. Epub 2008 Aug 1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cameron JL, Sandone C. Atlas of gastrointestinal surgery, 2nd edition, 2007 ISBN-10:1550092707Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris Sepesi
    • 1
  • Jacob Moalem
    • 2
  • Eva Galka
    • 2
  • Peter Salzman
    • 3
  • Luke O Schoeniger
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biostatistics and Computational BiologyUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations