Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

High-Risk Pancreatic Anastomosis: Prediction, Mitigation, and Management of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The High-risk Surgical Patient

  • 1418 Accesses

Abstract

The implementation of composite scores for risk stratification in routine daily practice has opened a new era of pancreatic surgery. Personalized risk assessment methods pave the way to a tailored approach during each stage of the surgical itinerary. Simple and easily detectable preoperative parameters allow engaging different risk-stratified clinical pathways to optimize postoperative outcomes. Intraoperative assessment of individual risk allows the adoption of different operative techniques, as many efforts have been made to reduce the incidence of severe morbidity and pancreatic fistula burden in the high-risk scenario through the systematic adoption of mitigation strategies (e.g., abdominal drains and trans-anastomotic stents). Finally, accurate and objective postoperative management can either lead to fast recovery in low-risk patients or allow mitigation of severe complications in high-risk settings. Different clinical pathways are not rigid or unique, but an ongoing assessment of individual risk can lead to interchangeable ways in the surgical path, optimizing results in each scenario.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Finks JF, Osborne NH, Birkmeyer JD. Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2128–37.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Lewis R, Drebin JA, Callery MP, et al. A contemporary analysis of survival for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. HPB. 2013;15:49–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Harnoss JC, Ulrich AB, Harnoss JM, et al. Use and results of consensus definitions in pancreatic surgery: a systematic review. Surg (United States). 2014;155:47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Giuliani T, et al. Pancreatoduodenectomy at the Verona pancreas institute: the evolution of indications, surgical techniques and Outcomesanalysis of 3000 consecutive cases. HPB. 2021;23:S722–3.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Trudeau MT, Casciani F, Ecker BL, et al. The fistula risk score Catalog. Ann Surg. 2022;275:e463–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lassen K, Coolsen MME, Slim K, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations. Clin Nutr. 2012;31:817–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Marchegiani G, Crippa S, Perri G, et al. Surgery for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: preoperative factors tipping the scale of decision-making. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-11326-5. Epub ahead of print.

  9. Sandini M, Malleo G, Gianotti L. Scores for prediction of fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: a systematic review. Dig Surg. 2016;33:392–400.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Denbo JW, Bruno M, Dewhurst W, et al. Risk-stratified clinical pathways decrease the duration of hospitalization and costs of perioperative care after pancreatectomy. Surg (United States). 2018;164:424–31.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Perri G, Marchegiani G, Partelli S, et al. Preoperative risk stratification of postoperative pancreatic fistula: a risk-tree predictive model for pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg (United States). 2021;170:1596–601.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Schuh F, Mihaljevic AL, Probst P, et al. A simple classification of pancreatic duct size and texture predicts postoperative pancreatic fistula. Ann Surg. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000004855.

  13. Gaujoux S, Cortes A, Couvelard A, et al. Fatty pancreas and increased body mass index are risk factors of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery. 2010;148:15–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Roberts KJ, Hodson J, Mehrzad H, et al. A preoperative predictive score of pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB. 2014;16:620–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yamamoto Y, Sakamoto Y, Nara S, et al. A preoperative predictive scoring system for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Surg. 2011;35:2747–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sandini M, Negreros-Osuna AA, Qadan M, et al. Main pancreatic duct to parenchymal thickness ratio at preoperative imaging is associated with overall survival in upfront resected pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:1606–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kantor O, Talamonti MS, Pitt HA, et al. Using the NSQIP pancreatic demonstration project to derive a modified fistula risk score for preoperative risk stratification in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224:816–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Angrisani M, Sandini M, Cereda M, et al. Preoperative adiposity at bioimpedance vector analysis improves the ability of fistula risk score (FRS) in predicting pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Pancreatology. 2020;20:545–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. House MG, Fong Y, Arnaoutakis DJ, et al. Preoperative predictors for complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: impact of BMI and body fat distribution. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:270–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tranchart H, Gaujoux S, Rebours V, et al. Preoperative CT scan helps to predict the occurrence of severe pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2012;256:139–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mungroop TH, Van Rijssen LB, Van Klaveren D, et al. Alternative fistula risk score for pancreatoduodenectomy (a-FRS): design and international external validation. Ann Surg. 2019;269:937–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lao M, Zhang X, Guo C, et al. External validation of alternative fistula risk score (a-FRS) for predicting pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB. 2020;22:58–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Menahem B, Mulliri A, Bazille C, et al. Body surface area: a new predictive factor of mortality and pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a cohort-study. Int J Surg. 2015;17:83–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, et al. A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:1–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pratt WB, Callery MP, Vollmer CM. Risk prediction for development of pancreatic fistula using the ISGPF classification scheme. World J Surg. 2008;32:419–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Denbo JW, Slack RS, Bruno M, et al. Selective perioperative administration of pasireotide is more cost-effective than routine administration for pancreatic fistula prophylaxis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21:636–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Marchegiani G, Andrianello S, Nessi C, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront resection for pancreatic cancer: the actual spectrum and clinical burden of postoperative complications. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:626–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, et al. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:1245–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dias-Santos D, Ferrone CR, Zheng H, et al. The Charlson age comorbidity index predicts early mortality after surgery for pancreatic cancer. Surg (United States). 2015;157:881–7.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mogal H, Vermilion SA, Dodson R, et al. Modified frailty index predicts morbidity and mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:1714–21.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M. POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg. 1991;78:355–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moran J, Wilson F, Guinan E, et al. Role of cardiopulmonary exercise testing as a risk-assessment method in patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116:177–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Snowden CP, Prentis JM, Anderson HL, et al. Submaximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing predicts complications and hospital length of stay in patients undergoing major elective surgery. Ann Surg. 2010;251:535–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Chandrabalan VV, McMillan DC, Carter R, et al. Pre-operative cardiopulmonary exercise testing predicts adverse post-operative events and non-progression to adjuvant therapy after major pancreatic surgery. HPB. 2013;15:899–907.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Ausania F, Snowden CP, Prentis JM, et al. Effects of low cardiopulmonary reserve on pancreatic leak following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1290–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sinclair RCF, Batterham AM, Davies S, et al. Validity of the 6 min walk test in prediction of the anaerobic threshold before major non-cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108:30–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Barberan-Garcia A, Ubré M, Roca J, et al. Personalised prehabilitation in high-risk patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery. Ann Surg. 2018;267:50–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ausania F, Melendez R, Senra P, et al. Prehabilitation in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: a randomized controlled trial. HPB. 2018;20:S627–8.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ecker BL, McMillan MT, Asbun HJ, et al. Characterization and optimal management of high-risk pancreatic anastomoses during pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2018;267:608–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Allen PJ, Gönen M, Brennan MF, et al. Pasireotide for postoperative pancreatic fistula. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2014–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Motoi F, Egawa S, Rikiyama T, et al. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Senda Y, Shimizu Y, Natsume S, et al. Randomized clinical trial of duct-to-mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2018;105:48–57.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Topal B, Fieuws S, Aerts R, et al. Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:655–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wang SE, Chen SC, Shyr BU, et al. Comparison of modified Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy and pancreaticogastrostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB. 2016;18:229–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Figueras J, Sabater L, Planellas P, et al. Randomized clinical trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy on the rate and severity of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1597–605.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bassi C, Falconi M, Molinari E, et al. Reconstruction by pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy following pancreatectomy: results of a comparative study. Ann Surg. 2005;242:767–73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Lyu Y, Li T, Cheng Y, et al. Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an up-to-date meta-analysis of RCTs applying the ISGPS (2016) criteria. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech. 2018;28:139–46.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Probst P, Hüttner FJ, Meydan Ö, et al. Evidence map of pancreatic surgery–a living systematic review with meta-analyses by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surg (United States). 2021;170:1517–24.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Poon RTP, Fan ST, Lo CM, et al. External drainage of pancreatic duct with a stent to reduce leakage rate of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246:425–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Kuroki T, Tajima Y, Kitasato A, et al. Stenting versus non-stenting in pancreaticojejunostomy: a prospective study limited to a normal pancreas without fibrosis sorted by using dynamic MRI. Pancreas. 2011;40:25–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hong S, Wang H, Yang S, et al. External stent versus no stent for pancreaticojejunostomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:1516–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Jang JY, Chang YR, Kim SW, et al. Randomized multicentre trial comparing external and internal pancreatic stenting during pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2016;103:668–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Andrianello S, Marchegiani G, Malleo G, et al. Pancreaticojejunostomy with externalized stent vs pancreaticogastrostomy with externalized stent for patients with high-risk pancreatic anastomosis: a single-Center, phase 3, randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2020;155:313–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Andrianello S, Marchegiani G, Balduzzi A, et al. Pros and pitfalls of externalized trans-anastomotic stent as a mitigation strategy of POPF: a prospective risk-stratified observational series. HPB. 2021;23:1046–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Huscher C, Perri G, Lazzarin G, et al. Coronary artery stent for securing high-risk pancreatico-jejunal anastomosis after pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000005316.

  56. Zhang W, He S, Cheng Y, et al. Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, DOI. 2018. Epub ahead of print 2018.; https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub4.

  57. Pergolini I, Schorn S, Goess R, et al. Drain use in pancreatic surgery: results from an international survey among experts in the field. Surgery. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2021.11.023. Epub ahead of print.

  58. McMillan MT, Malleo G, Bassi C, et al. Pancreatic fistula risk for pancreatoduodenectomy: an international survey of surgeon perception. HPB. 2017;19:515–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Brubaker LS, Casciani F, Fisher WE, et al. A risk-adjusted analysis of drain use in pancreaticoduodenectomy: Some is good, but more may not be better. Surg (United States). Epub ahead of print 9 January. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2021.07.026.

  60. Jeekel J. No abdominal drainage after Whipple’s procedure. Br J Surg. 1992;79:182.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Van Buren GII, Bloomston M, Hughes SJ, et al. A randomized prospective multicenter trial of pancreaticoduodenectomy with and without routine intraperitoneal drainage. Ann Surg. 2014;259:605–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. McMillan MT, Malleo G, Bassi C, et al. Multicenter, prospective trial of selective drain management for pancreatoduodenectomy using risk stratification. Ann Surg. 2017;265:1209–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Pulvirenti A, Pea A, Rezaee N, et al. Perioperative outcomes and long-term quality of life after total pancreatectomy. Br J Surg. 2019;106:1819–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Stoop TF, Ateeb Z, Ghorbani P, et al. Surgical outcomes after total pancreatectomy: a high-volume center experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:1543–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Scholten L, Stoop TF, Del Chiaro M, et al. Systematic review of functional outcome and quality of life after total pancreatectomy. Br J Surg. 2019;106:1735–46.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Stoop TF, Ateeb Z, Ghorbani P, et al. Impact of endocrine and exocrine insufficiency on quality of life after total pancreatectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:587–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Marchegiani G, Perri G, Burelli A, et al. High-risk pancreatic anastomosis vs. total pancreatectomy after pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg; Publish Ah. Epub ahead of print. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000004840.

  68. McMillan MT, Malleo G, Bassi C, et al. Drain management after pancreatoduodenectomy: reappraisal of a prospective randomized trial using risk stratification. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221:798–809.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Kawai M, Tani M, Terasawa H, et al. Early removal of prophylactic drains reduces the risk of intra-abdominal infections in patients with pancreatic head resection: prospective study for 104 consecutive patients. Ann Surg. 2006;244:1–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Bassi C, Molinari E, Malleo G, et al. Early versus late drain removal after standard pancreatic resections: results of a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252:207–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Marchegiani G, Perri G, Pulvirenti A, et al. Non-inferiority of open passive drains compared with closed suction drains in pancreatic surgery outcomes: a prospective observational study. Surg (United States). 2018;164:443–9.

    Google Scholar 

  72. McMillan MT, Malleo G, Bassi C, et al. Defining the practice of pancreatoduodenectomy around the world. HPB. 2015;17:1145–54.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Molinari E, Bassi C, Salvia R, et al. Amylase value in drains after pancreatic resection as predictive factor of postoperative pancreatic fistula: results of a prospective study in 137 patients. Ann Surg. 2007;246:281–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Giglio MC, Spalding DRC, Giakoustidis A, et al. Meta-analysis of drain amylase content on postoperative day 1 as a predictor of pancreatic fistula following pancreatic resection. Br J Surg. 2016;103:328–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Israel JS, Rettammel RJ, Leverson GE, et al. Does postoperative drain amylase predict pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy? J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:978–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Lee CW, Pitt HA, Riall TS, et al. Low drain fluid amylase predicts absence of pancreatic fistula following pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:1902–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Partelli S, Tamburrino D, Crippa S, et al. Evaluation of a predictive model for pancreatic fistula based on amylase value in drains after pancreatic resection. Am J Surg. 2014;208:634–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Ven Fong Z, Correa-Gallego C, Ferrone CR, et al. Early drain removal—the middle ground between the drain versus no drain debate in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective validation study. Ann Surg. 2015;262:378–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Davidson TBU, Yaghoobi M, Davidson BR, et al. Amylase in drain fluid for the diagnosis of pancreatic leak in post-pancreatic resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. Epub ahead of print 2017.; https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012009.pub2.

  80. Marchegiani G, Bassi C. Prevention, prediction, and mitigation of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Br J Surg. 2021;108:602–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Trudeau MT, Maggino L, Chen B, et al. Extended experience with a dynamic, data-driven selective drain management protocol in pancreaticoduodenectomy: progressive risk stratification for better practice. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;230:809–818.e1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Seykora TF, Maggino L, Malleo G, et al. Evolving the paradigm of early drain removal following pancreatoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23:135–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Zureikat AH, Casciani F, Ahmad S, et al. Kinetics of postoperative drain fluid amylase values after pancreatoduodenectomy: new insights to dynamic, data-driven drain management. Surg (United States). 2021;170:639–41.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Salvia R, Marchegiani G, Andrianello S, et al. Redefining the role of drain amylase value for a risk-based drain management after pancreaticoduodenectomy: early drain removal still is beneficial. J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25:1461–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Klek S, Sierzega M, Turczynowski L, et al. Enteral and parenteral nutrition in the conservative treatment of pancreatic fistula: a randomized clinical trial. Gastroenterology. 2011;141:157–163.e1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Wu JM, Kuo TC, Chen HA, et al. Randomized trial of oral versus enteral feeding for patients with postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2019;106:190–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy

    Andrea Caravati, Giampaolo Perri, Giovanni Marchegiani & Claudio Bassi

Authors
  1. Andrea Caravati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giampaolo Perri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giovanni Marchegiani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Claudio Bassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Marchegiani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Emergenza Urgenza, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy

    Paolo Aseni

  2. Divisione di Cardiochirurgia, IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Antonino Massimiliano Grande

  3. Div. of Emerg. Surg., Abdominal Center, Helsinki University Hospital Meilahti, Helsinki, Finland

    Ari Leppäniemi

  4. Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, General Surgery and Trauma Team, University of Milano, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy

    Osvaldo Chiara

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Caravati, A., Perri, G., Marchegiani, G., Bassi, C. (2023). High-Risk Pancreatic Anastomosis: Prediction, Mitigation, and Management of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula. In: Aseni, P., Grande, A.M., Leppäniemi, A., Chiara, O. (eds) The High-risk Surgical Patient. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17273-1_27

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17273-1_27

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-17272-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-17273-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation