Celiac Axis Stenosis is an Underestimated Risk Factor for Increased Morbidity After Pancreatoduodenectomy.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2023
01 04 2023
Historique:
pubmed:
8
2
2022
medline:
14
3
2023
entrez:
7
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assesses the prevalence and severity of CAS in patients undergoing PD/total pancreatectomy and its association with major postoperative complications after PD. CAS may increase the risk of ischemic complications after PD. However, the prevalence of CAS and its relevance to major morbidity remain unknown. All patients with a preoperative computed tomography with arterial phase undergoing partial PD or TP between 2014 and 2017 were identified from a prospective database. CAS was assessed based on computed tomography and graded according to its severity: no stenosis (<30%), grade A (30%-<50%), grade B (50%-≤80%), and grade C (>80%). Postoperative complications were assessed and uni- and multivariable risk analyses were performed. Of 989 patients, 273 (27.5%) had CAS: 177 (17.9%) with grade A, 83 (8.4%) with grade B, and 13 (1.3%) with grade C. Postoperative morbidity and 90-day mortality occurred in 278 (28.1%) patients and 41 (4.1%) patients, respectively. CAS was associated with clinically relevant pancreatic fistula ( P =0.019), liver perfusion failure ( P =0.003), gastric ischemia ( P =0.001), clinically relevant biliary leakage ( P =0.006), and intensive care unit ( P =0.016) and hospital stay ( P =0.001). Multivariable analyses confirmed grade B and C CAS as independent risk factors for liver perfusion failure; in addition, grade C CAS was an independent risk factor for clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and gastric complications. CAS is common in patients undergoing PD. Higher grade of CAS is associated with an increased risk for clinically relevant complications, including liver perfusion failure and postoperative pancreatic fistula. Precise radiological assessment may help to identify CAS. Future studies should investigate measures to mitigate CAS-associated risks.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To assesses the prevalence and severity of CAS in patients undergoing PD/total pancreatectomy and its association with major postoperative complications after PD.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
CAS may increase the risk of ischemic complications after PD. However, the prevalence of CAS and its relevance to major morbidity remain unknown.
METHODS
All patients with a preoperative computed tomography with arterial phase undergoing partial PD or TP between 2014 and 2017 were identified from a prospective database. CAS was assessed based on computed tomography and graded according to its severity: no stenosis (<30%), grade A (30%-<50%), grade B (50%-≤80%), and grade C (>80%). Postoperative complications were assessed and uni- and multivariable risk analyses were performed.
RESULTS
Of 989 patients, 273 (27.5%) had CAS: 177 (17.9%) with grade A, 83 (8.4%) with grade B, and 13 (1.3%) with grade C. Postoperative morbidity and 90-day mortality occurred in 278 (28.1%) patients and 41 (4.1%) patients, respectively. CAS was associated with clinically relevant pancreatic fistula ( P =0.019), liver perfusion failure ( P =0.003), gastric ischemia ( P =0.001), clinically relevant biliary leakage ( P =0.006), and intensive care unit ( P =0.016) and hospital stay ( P =0.001). Multivariable analyses confirmed grade B and C CAS as independent risk factors for liver perfusion failure; in addition, grade C CAS was an independent risk factor for clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and gastric complications.
CONCLUSIONS
CAS is common in patients undergoing PD. Higher grade of CAS is associated with an increased risk for clinically relevant complications, including liver perfusion failure and postoperative pancreatic fistula. Precise radiological assessment may help to identify CAS. Future studies should investigate measures to mitigate CAS-associated risks.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35129468
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005383
pii: 00000658-202304000-00046
pmc: PMC9994807
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e885-e892Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Diener MK, Hüttner FJ, Kieser M, et al. Partial pancreatoduodenectomy versus duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection in chronic pancreatitis: the multicentre, randomised, controlled, double-blind ChroPac trial. Lancet. 2017;390:1027–1037.
Shrikhande SV, Sivasanker M, Vollmer CM, et al. Pancreatic anastomosis after pancreatoduodenectomy: a position statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2017;161:1221–1234.
Schnelldorfer T, Ware AL, Sarr MG, et al. Long-term survival after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: is cure possible? Ann Surg. 2008;247:456–462.
Hackert T, Sachsenmaier M, Hinz U, et al. Locally advanced pancreatic cancer: neoadjuvant therapy with folfirinox results in resectability in 60% of the patients. Ann Surg. 2016;264:457–463.
Hartwig W, Gluth A, Hinz U, et al. Outcomes after extended pancreatectomy in patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 2016;103:1683–1694.
Strobel O, Neoptolemos J, Jäger D, et al. Optimizing the outcomes of pancreatic cancer surgery. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019;16:11–26.
Hank T, Sandini M, Ferrone CR, et al. Association between pancreatic fistula and long-term survival in the era of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:943–951.
Fernández-del Castillo C, Morales-Oyarvide V, McGrath D, et al. Evolution of the Whipple procedure at the Massachusetts General Hospital. Surgery. 2012;152:S56–S63.
Hartwig W, Werner J, Jäger D, et al. Improvement of surgical results for pancreatic cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:e476–e485.
Ahmad SA, Edwards MJ, Sutton JM, et al. Factors influencing readmission after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a multi-institutional study of 1302 patients. Ann Surg. 2012;256:529–537.
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;161:584–591.
Cameron JL, He J. Two thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:530–536.
Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) – an international study group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery. 2007;142:20–25.
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.
Stauffer JA, Bridges MD, Turan N, et al. Aberrant right hepatic arterial anatomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy: recognition, prevalence and management. HPB. 2009;11:161–165.
Hackert T, Stampfl U, Schulz H, et al. Clinical significance of liver ischaemia after pancreatic resection. Br J Surg. 2011;98:1760–1765.
Winter JM, Cameron JL, Yeo CJ, et al. Duodenojejunostomy leaks after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:263–269.
Javed AA, Mirza MB, Sham JG, et al. Postoperative biliary anastomotic strictures after pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2021;23:1716–1721.
Bong JJ, Karanjia ND, Menezes N, et al. Total gastric necrosis due to aberrant arterial anatomy and retrograde blood flow in the gastroduodenal artery: a complication following pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB. 2007;9:466–469.
Sugae T, Fujii T, Kodera Y, et al. Classification of the celiac axis stenosis owing to median arcuate ligament compression, based on severity of the stenosis with subsequent proposals for management during pancreatoduodenectomy. Surgery. 2012;151:543–549.
Zhou Y, Wang W, Shi Y, et al. Substantial atherosclerotic celiac axis stenosis is a new risk factor for biliary fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Int J Surg. 2018;49:62–67.
Giovanardi F, Lai Q, Garofalo M, et al. Collaterals management during pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with celiac axis stenosis: a systematic review of the literature. Pancreatology. 2018;18:592–600.
Harb S-G., O’sullivan AW, Marangoni G, et al. Managing arterial collaterals due to coeliac axis stenosis during pancreaticoduodenectomy. Pancreas. 2009;10:547–549.
Nara S, Sakamoto Y, Shimada K, et al. Arterial reconstruction during pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with celiac axis stenosis—utility of Doppler ultrasonography. World J Surg. 2005;29:885–889.
Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12:1495–1499.
Hartwig W, Vollmer CM, Fingerhut A, et al. Extended pancreatectomy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: definition and consensus of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2014;156:1–14.
Michels NA. Newer anatomy of the liver and its variant blood supply and collateral circulation. Am J Surg. 1966;112:337–347.
Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R, et al. Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery. 2011;149:680–688.
Garcia-Perez MA, Nunez-Anton V. Cellwise residual analysis in two-way contingency tables. Educ Psychol Meas. 2003;63:825–839.
Beasley TM, Schumacker RE. Multiple regression approach to analyzing contingency tables: post hoc and planned comparison procedures. J Exp Educ. 1995;64:79–93.
Callery MP, Pratt WB, Vollmer CM Jr. Prevention and management of pancreatic fistula. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:163–173.
Yuan F, Essaji Y, Belley-Cote EP, et al. Postoperative complications in elderly patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy lead to increased postoperative mortality and costs. A retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2018;60:204–209.
Jiang J, Upfill-Brown A, Dann AM, et al. Association of hospital length of stay and complications with readmission after open pancreaticoduodenectomy. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:88–90.
De Pastena M, Paiella S, Marchegiani G, et al. Postoperative infections represent a major determinant of outcome after pancreaticoduodenectomy: results from a high-volume center. Surgery. 2017;162:792–801.
Diener MK, Seiler CM, Rossion I, et al. Efficacy of stapler versus hand-sewn closure after distal pancreatectomy (DISPACT): a randomised, controlled multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011;377:1514–1522.
Keck T, Wellner UF, Bahra M, et al. Pancreatogastrostomy versus pancreatojejunostomy for RECOnstruction after PANCreatoduodenectomy (RECOPANC, DRKS 00000767): perioperative and long-term results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2016;263:440–449.
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;269:937–943.
Kurosaki I, Hatakeyama K, Nihei KE, et al. Celiac axis stenosis in pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2004;11:119–124.
Sakorafas GH, Sarr MG, Peros G. Celiac artery stenosis: an underappreciated and unpleasant surprise in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:349–356.
Loos M, Strobel O, Dietrich M, et al. Hyperamylasemia and acute pancreatitis after pancreatoduodenectomy: two different entities. Surgery. 2021;169:369–376.
Marchegiani G, Perri G, Burelli A, et al. High-risk pancreatic anastomosis vs. total pancreatectomy after pancreatoduodenectomy: postoperative outcomes and quality of life analysis. Ann Surg. 2021.
Gaujoux S, Sauvanet A, Vullierme M-P, et al. Ischemic complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: incidence, prevention, and management. Ann Surg. 2009;249:111–117.
Xia BT, Ahmad SA, Al Humaidi AH, et al. Time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy in pancreas cancer: a multi-institutional experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:2770–2776.
Merath K, Mehta R, Tsilimigras DI, et al. In-hospital mortality following pancreatoduodenectomy: a comprehensive analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2020;24:1119–1126.