Advertisement

Impact of anatomical position of the pancreas on postoperative complications and drain amylase concentrations after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer

  • Koshi Kumagai
  • Naoki Hiki
  • Souya Nunobe
  • Satoshi Kamiya
  • Masahiro Tsujiura
  • Satoshi Ida
  • Manabu Ohashi
  • Toshiharu Yamaguchi
  • Takeshi Sano
Article
  • 118 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer requires traction or compression of the pancreas, with the extent depending on the anatomical position of the pancreas. This study investigated the impact of the position of the pancreas on postoperative complications and drain amylase concentrations after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG).

Methods

Gastric cancer patients who underwent LDG were assessed retrospectively. The following anatomical parameters were measured retrospectively in preoperative computed tomography sagittal projections: the length of the vertical line between the pancreas and the aorta (P–A length), representing the height of the slope looking down the celiac artery from the top of the pancreas, and the angle between a line drawn from the upper border of the pancreas to the root of the celiac artery and the aorta (UP–CA angle), representing the steepness of the slope. Correlations between each parameter and postoperative complications were analyzed by logistic regression analysis. Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficients were calculated for scatter diagrams for each parameter and drain amylase concentration on postoperative day 1.

Results

Analyses were performed in 394 patients. P–A length [odds ratio (OR) 1.905; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.100–3.300; P = 0.021] was significantly correlated with pancreatic fistula. P–A length (OR 2.771; 95% CI 1.506–5.098; P = 0.001), UP–CA angle (OR 2.323; 95% CI 1.251–4.314; P = 0.008), and low preoperative serum albumin (OR 2.082; 95% CI 1.050–4.128; P = 0.036) were significantly correlated with overall postoperative complications defined as Clavien–Dindo ≥ grade II. P–A length and UP–CA angle showed significant positive correlations with drain amylase concentration on postoperative day 1.

Conclusion

The position of the pancreas is an independent predictor of pancreatic fistula and/or postoperative complications and correlates with drain amylase concentration after LDG for gastric cancer.

Keywords

Stomach Cancer Pancreas Complication Anatomical position 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Drs. Koshi Kumagai, Naoki Hiki, Souya Nunobe, Satoshi Kamiya, Masahiro Tsujiura, Satoshi Ida, Manabu Ohashi, Toshiharu Yamaguchi, and Takeshi Sano have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Ethical approval

All procedures involving human participants were carried out in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, and in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The entire study was conducted with the approval of the institutional review board at the Cancer Institute Hospital (No. 1737). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Adachi Y, Shiraishi N, Shiromizu A, Bandoh T, Aramaki M, Kitano S (2000) Laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy compared with conventional open gastrectomy. Arch Surg 135:806–810CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adachi Y, Suematsu T, Shiraishi N, Katsuta T, Morimoto A, Kitano S, Akazawa K (1999) Quality of life after laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy. Ann Surg 229:49–54CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hayashi H, Ochiai T, Shimada H, Gunji Y (2005) Prospective randomized study of open versus laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with extraperigastric lymph node dissection for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 19:1172–1176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G, Sansonetti A, Di PM, Recher A, Ponzano C (2005) Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer: five-year results of a randomized prospective trial. Ann Surg 241:232–237CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim MC, Kim KH, Kim HH, Jung GJ (2005) Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted by conventional open distal gastrectomy and extraperigastric lymph node dissection in early gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol 91:90–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miura S, Kodera Y, Fujiwara M, Ito S, Mochizuki Y, Yamamura Y, Hibi K, Ito K, Akiyama S, Nakao A (2004) Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with systemic lymph node dissection: a critical reappraisal from the viewpoint of lymph node retrieval. J Am Coll Surg 198:933–938CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mochiki E, Nakabayashi T, Kamimura H, Haga N, Asao T, Kuwano H (2002) Gastrointestinal recovery and outcome after laparoscopy-assisted versus conventional open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. World J Surg 26:1145–1149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mochiki E, Kamiyama Y, Aihara R, Nakabayashi T, Asao T, Kuwano H (2005) Laparoscopic assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: five years’ experience. Surgery 137:317–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noshiro H, Nagai E, Shimizu S, Uchiyama A, Tanaka M (2005) Laparoscopically assisted distal gastrectomy with standard radical lymph node dissection for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 19:1592–1596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Obama K, Okabe H, Hosogi H, Tanaka E, Itami A, Sakai Y (2011) Feasibility of laparoscopic gastrectomy with radical lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: from a viewpoint of pancreas-related complications. Surgery 149:15–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fujita T, Ohta M, Ozaki Y, Takahashi Y, Miyazaki S, Harada T, Iino I, Kikuchi H, Hiramatsu Y, Kamiya K, Konno H (2015) Collateral thermal damage to the pancreas by ultrasonic instruments during lymph node dissection in laparoscopic gastrectomy. Asian J Endosc Surg 8:281–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Irino T, Hiki N, Ohashi M, Nunobe S, Sano T, Yamaguchi T (2016) The Hit and Away technique: optimal usage of the ultrasonic scalpel in laparoscopic gastrectomy. Surg Endosc 30:245–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kobayashi N, Shinohara H, Haruta S, Ohkura Y, Mizuno A, Ueno M, Udagawa H, Sakai Y (2016) Process of pancreas head as a risk factor for postoperative pancreatic fistula in laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery. World J Surg 40:2194–2201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Migita K, Matsumoto S, Wakatsuki K, Ito M, Kunishige T, Nakade H, Nakatani M, Kitano M, Nakajima Y (2016) The anatomical location of the pancreas is associated with the incidence of pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic gastrectomy. Surg Endosc 30:5481–5489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Sol A, Cirocchi R, Di Patrizi MS, Boccolini A, Barillaro I, Cacurri A, Grassi V, Corsi A, Renzi C, Giuliani D, Coccetta M, Avenia N (2015) The measurement of amylase in drain fluid for the detection of pancreatic fistula after gastric cancer surgery: an interim analysis. World J Surg Oncol 13:65-CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iwata N, Kodera Y, Eguchi T, Ohashi N, Nakayama G, Koike M, Fujiwara M, Nakao A (2010) Amylase concentration of the drainage fluid as a risk factor for intra-abdominal abscess following gastrectomy for gastric cancer. World J Surg 34:1534–1539CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kanda M, Fujiwara M, Tanaka C, Kobayashi D, Iwata N, Mizuno A, Yamada S, Fujii T, Nakayama G, Sugimoto H, Koike M, Kodera Y (2016) Predictive value of drain amylase content for peripancreatic inflammatory fluid collections after laparoscopic (assisted) distal gastrectomy. Surg Endosc 30:4353–4362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kobayashi D, Iwata N, Tanaka C, Kanda M, Yamada S, Nakayama G, Fujii T, Koike M, Fujiwara M, Kodera Y (2015) Factors related to occurrence and aggravation of pancreatic fistula after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol 112:381–386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miki Y, Tokunaga M, Bando E, Tanizawa Y, Kawamura T, Terashima M (2011) Evaluation of postoperative pancreatic fistula after total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy by ISGPF classification. J Gastrointest Surg 15:1969–1976CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tomimaru Y, Miyashiro I, Kishi K, Motoori M, Yano M, Shingai T, Noura S, Ohue M, Ohigashi H, Ishikawa O (2011) Is routine measurement of amylase concentration in drainage fluid necessary after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer? J Surg Oncol 104:274–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (2017) Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver. 4). Gastric Cancer 20:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hiki N, Fukunaga T, Yamaguchi T, Nunobe S, Tokunaga M, Ohyama S, Seto Y, Yoshiba H, Nohara K, Inoue H, Muto T (2008) The benefits of standardizing the operative procedure for the assistant in laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg 393:963–971CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kumagai K, Hiki N, Nunobe S, Jiang X, Kubota T, Aikou S, Watanabe R, Tanimura S, Sano T, Kitagawa Y, Yamaguchi T (2011) Different features of complications with Billroth-I and Roux-en-Y reconstruction after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 15:2145–2152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kanaya S, Gomi T, Momoi H, Tamaki N, Isobe H, Katayama T, Wada Y, Ohtoshi M (2002) Delta-shaped anastomosis in totally laparoscopic Billroth I gastrectomy: new technique of intraabdominal gastroduodenostomy. J Am Coll Surg 195:284–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de SE, Pekolj, Slankamenac J, Bassi K, Graf C, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron R, Makuuchi JL M (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Katayama H, Kurokawa Y, Nakamura K, Ito H, Kanemitsu Y, Masuda N, Tsubosa Y, Satoh T, Yokomizo A, Fukuda H, Sasako M (2016) Extended Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Japan Clinical Oncology Group postoperative complications criteria. Surg Today 46:668–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kodera Y, Sasako M, Yamamoto S, Sano T, Nashimoto A, Kurita A (2005) Identification of risk factors for the development of complications following extended and superextended lymphadenectomies for gastric cancer. Br J Surg 92:1103–1109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jiang X, Hiki N, Nunobe S, Fukunaga T, Kumagai K, Nohara K, Sano T, Yamaguchi T (2011) Postoperative outcomes and complications after laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Ann Surg 253:928–933CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tsujiura M, Hiki N, Ohashi M, Nunobe S, Kumagai K, Ida S, Okumura Y, Sano T, Yamaguchi T (2017) “Pancreas-compressionless gastrectomy”: a novel laparoscopic approach for suprapancreatic lymph node dissection. Ann Surg Oncol 24:3331–3337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koshi Kumagai
    • 1
  • Naoki Hiki
    • 1
  • Souya Nunobe
    • 1
  • Satoshi Kamiya
    • 1
  • Masahiro Tsujiura
    • 1
  • Satoshi Ida
    • 1
  • Manabu Ohashi
    • 1
  • Toshiharu Yamaguchi
    • 1
  • Takeshi Sano
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute HospitalJapanese Foundation for Cancer ResearchTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations