Comparison of three reconstruction techniques performed after pancreaticoduodenectomy: Using external, internal, or no stent.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Carlos Jiménez-Romero, Alejandro Marcacuzco-Quinto, Oscar Caso-Maestro, Laura Alonso, Clara Fernández-Fernández, Iago Justo
{"title":"Comparison of three reconstruction techniques performed after pancreaticoduodenectomy: Using external, internal, or no stent.","authors":"Carlos Jiménez-Romero, Alejandro Marcacuzco-Quinto, Oscar Caso-Maestro, Laura Alonso, Clara Fernández-Fernández, Iago Justo","doi":"10.4240/wjgs.v17.i6.104652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most frequent cause of morbimortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy, but the best technique to use to prevent its development is unclear. The choice of drainage method external duct stent (EDS), internal duct stent (IDS), or non-ductal stent (NDS) is also controversial.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the three groups (EDS, IDS and NDS), analyzing the patient characteristics, perioperative examinations and survival.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy and pancreaticojejunostomy between 2012 and 2020, were divided into the EDS, IDS and NDS groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 244 patients included, 129 were in the EDS group, 71 in the IDS group, and 44 in the NDS group. Except for preoperative pancreatitis in the NDS patients, comorbidities were similar among the groups. Patients in the NDS group had a high caliber of the Wirsung duct and frequently presented with a hard pancreas (<i>P</i> < 0.001). A lower rate of grade C POPF was observed in the EDS (1.6%) compared to the NDS (9.1%) and IDS group (14.1%) (<i>P</i> = 0.009). The groups showed similar findings for delayed gastric emptying, postoperative hemorrhage, reoperation, and 5-year survivals. Ninety-day mortality rate was significantly higher in the IDS group (5.6%) compared to the EDS (1.6%) and NDS (4.5%) groups (<i>P</i> = 0.046). Multivariate analysis showed that the use of EDS was a protective factor for grade B/C POPF (<i>P</i> = 0.034), and 90-day mortality (<i>P</i> = 0.018). Additionally, a Wirsung duct diameter < 3 mm was the only risk factor for grade B/C POPF (<i>P</i> = 0.001), and 90-day mortality (<i>P</i> = 0.031).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of the EDS was a protective factor for grade B/C POPF and 90-day mortality, and the Wirsung duct < 3 mm was a risk factor for grade B/C POPF and 90-day mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":23759,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","volume":"17 6","pages":"104652"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12188594/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i6.104652","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most frequent cause of morbimortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy, but the best technique to use to prevent its development is unclear. The choice of drainage method external duct stent (EDS), internal duct stent (IDS), or non-ductal stent (NDS) is also controversial.

Aim: To compare the three groups (EDS, IDS and NDS), analyzing the patient characteristics, perioperative examinations and survival.

Methods: Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy and pancreaticojejunostomy between 2012 and 2020, were divided into the EDS, IDS and NDS groups.

Results: Of the 244 patients included, 129 were in the EDS group, 71 in the IDS group, and 44 in the NDS group. Except for preoperative pancreatitis in the NDS patients, comorbidities were similar among the groups. Patients in the NDS group had a high caliber of the Wirsung duct and frequently presented with a hard pancreas (P < 0.001). A lower rate of grade C POPF was observed in the EDS (1.6%) compared to the NDS (9.1%) and IDS group (14.1%) (P = 0.009). The groups showed similar findings for delayed gastric emptying, postoperative hemorrhage, reoperation, and 5-year survivals. Ninety-day mortality rate was significantly higher in the IDS group (5.6%) compared to the EDS (1.6%) and NDS (4.5%) groups (P = 0.046). Multivariate analysis showed that the use of EDS was a protective factor for grade B/C POPF (P = 0.034), and 90-day mortality (P = 0.018). Additionally, a Wirsung duct diameter < 3 mm was the only risk factor for grade B/C POPF (P = 0.001), and 90-day mortality (P = 0.031).

Conclusion: The use of the EDS was a protective factor for grade B/C POPF and 90-day mortality, and the Wirsung duct < 3 mm was a risk factor for grade B/C POPF and 90-day mortality.

胰十二指肠切除术后三种重建技术的比较:使用外支架、内支架或不使用支架。
背景:术后胰瘘(POPF)是胰十二指肠切除术后最常见的死亡原因,但预防其发展的最佳技术尚不清楚。引流方式选择外导管支架(EDS)、内导管支架(IDS)还是非导管支架(NDS)也存在争议。目的:比较三组(EDS、IDS、NDS)患者的特点、围手术期检查及生存率。方法:将2012 ~ 2020年行胰十二指肠切除术和胰空肠吻合术的患者分为EDS组、IDS组和NDS组。结果:244例患者中,EDS组129例,IDS组71例,NDS组44例。除了NDS患者的术前胰腺炎外,两组患者的合并症相似。NDS组患者Wirsung管口径较高,且常出现胰腺硬质(P < 0.001)。EDS组C级POPF发生率(1.6%)低于NDS组(9.1%)和IDS组(14.1%)(P = 0.009)。两组在胃排空延迟、术后出血、再手术和5年生存率方面的发现相似。IDS组的90天死亡率(5.6%)显著高于EDS组(1.6%)和NDS组(4.5%)(P = 0.046)。多因素分析显示,EDS的使用是B/C级POPF (P = 0.034)和90天死亡率(P = 0.018)的保护因素。此外,Wirsung导管直径< 3 mm是B/C级POPF (P = 0.001)和90天死亡率(P = 0.031)的唯一危险因素。结论:EDS的使用是B/C级POPF和90天死亡率的保护因素,Wirsung导管< 3mm是B/C级POPF和90天死亡率的危险因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
5.00%
发文量
111
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信