Comparisons of short-term outcomes of anastomotic methods of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy: out-layer continuous suture
Pancreaticoduodenectomy
Pancreaticojejunostomy
Surgical anastomosis
Journal
Annals of surgical treatment and research
ISSN: 2288-6575
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Treat Res
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101622895
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
10
06
2022
revised:
12
09
2022
accepted:
27
09
2022
entrez:
5
1
2023
pubmed:
6
1
2023
medline:
6
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most troublesome complication after pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ). This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of 2 different methods of duct-to-mucosa PJ; out-layer continuous suture anastomosis (OCA) and the modified Blumgart method (mBM). This retrospective cohort study enrolled patients who underwent curative-intent, open PD between 2015 and 2020. In mBM, 2 transpancreatic U-sutures were performed between the pancreatic margin and jejunum, with reinforced sutures in the central region. Patient demographics, diagnosis, intraoperative factors, postoperative complications, and POPF defined by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula were investigated. Clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) included grades B and C POPF. A total of 184 patients underwent OCA, and 96 patients underwent mBM. The mBM group had more patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. The fistula risk scores were comparable between the 2 groups. Both groups showed no significant differences in CR-POPF and overall surgical complication rates. The total operation time was comparable, although the operation time for PJ was shorter in mBM. No significant differences were observed in the postoperative outcomes between each group; the operation time for PJ in mBM was shorter. Therefore, mBM may be considered for utilization in duct-to-mucosa PJ.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36601337
doi: 10.4174/astr.2022.103.6.331
pmc: PMC9763782
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
331-339Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022, the Korean Surgical Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Références
J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Jan;210(1):54-9
pubmed: 20123332
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 May;96(19):e6858
pubmed: 28489778
Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2018 Aug;22(3):253-260
pubmed: 30215047
J Pak Med Assoc. 2018 Mar;68(3):348-352
pubmed: 29540866
Can J Surg. 2015 Jun;58(3):154-9
pubmed: 25799130
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 21;10(1):17896
pubmed: 33087777
J Gastrointest Surg. 2021 Feb;25(2):411-420
pubmed: 31997074
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018 Feb;25(2):142-149
pubmed: 29117639
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2020 Feb;405(1):13-22
pubmed: 31975148
World J Surg. 2019 Dec;43(12):3128-3137
pubmed: 31502003
Br J Surg. 2018 Jan;105(1):48-57
pubmed: 29265404
J Surg Oncol. 2018 Mar;117(3):389-396
pubmed: 29044532
HPB (Oxford). 2019 Jan;21(1):51-59
pubmed: 30093143
Surgery. 2017 Mar;161(3):584-591
pubmed: 28040257
BMC Surg. 2018 Oct 24;18(1):88
pubmed: 30355352
Surgery. 2017 May;161(5):1221-1234
pubmed: 28027816
Asian J Surg. 2019 Jan;42(1):343-349
pubmed: 30087009
Ann Surg. 2019 Feb;269(2):243-251
pubmed: 29697455
Surgery. 2021 Apr;169(4):954-962
pubmed: 32958267
Trials. 2019 Aug 9;20(1):490
pubmed: 31399139
World J Gastroenterol. 2007 Oct 28;13(40):5351-6
pubmed: 17879405
JAMA Surg. 2020 Apr 1;155(4):313-321
pubmed: 32101272
J Gastrointest Surg. 2020 Jun;24(6):1375-1385
pubmed: 31228083
Ann Surg. 1935 Oct;102(4):763-79
pubmed: 17856666
Ann Surg. 2019 May;269(5):937-943
pubmed: 29240007
Perioper Med (Lond). 2018 Jun 19;7:14
pubmed: 29946447
Br J Surg. 1990 Jan;77(1):83-5
pubmed: 2302521
Am J Surg. 2018 Nov;216(5):941-948
pubmed: 29606278
HPB (Oxford). 2004;6(3):154-60
pubmed: 18333069