Internal drainage for interdisciplinary management of anastomotic leakage after pancreaticogastrostomy.
Anastomotic leakage
Endoscopy-guided drainage
Intramural drainage
Pancreatic fistula
Peri-anastomotic stent
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2023
07 2023
Historique:
received:
25
09
2022
accepted:
13
02
2023
medline:
7
7
2023
pubmed:
7
3
2023
entrez:
6
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Anastomotic leakage and postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) may occur after pancreatic head resection, also in the setting of pancreato-gastric reconstruction. For adequate complication management, a variety of non-standardized treatments are available. Still, data on clinical evaluation of endoscopic methods remain scarce. Based on our interdisciplinary experience on endoscopic treatment of retro-gastric fluid collections after left-sided pancreatectomies, we developed an innovative endoscopic concept with internal peri-anastomotic stent placement for patients with anastomotic leakage and/or peri-anastomotic fluid collection. Over the period of 6 years (2015-2020) we retrospectively evaluated 531 patients after pancreatic head resections at the Department of Surgery, Charité-Unversitätsmedizin Berlin. Of these, 403 received reconstruction via pancreatogastrostomy. We identified 110 patients (27.3%) with anastomotic leakage and/or peri-anastomotic fluid collection and could define four treatment groups which received either conservative treatment (C), percutaneous drainage (PD), endoscopic drainage (ED), and/or re-operation (OP). Patients were grouped in a step-up approach for descriptive analyses and in a stratified, decision-based algorithm for comparative analyses. The study's primary endpoints were hospitalization (length of hospital stay) and clinical success (treatment success rate, primary/secondary resolution). We characterized an institutional, post-operative cohort with heterogenous complication management following pancreato-gastric reconstruction. The majority of patients needed interventional treatments (n = 92, 83.6%). Of these, close to one-third (n = 32, 29.1%) were treated with endoscopy-guided, peri-anastomotic pigtail stents for internal drainage as either primary, secondary and/or tertiary treatment modality. Following a decision-based algorithm, we could discriminate superior primary-(77,8% vs 53.7%) and secondary success rates (85.7% vs 68.4%) as well as earlier primary resolutions (11.4 days, 95%CI (5.75-17.13) vs 37.4 days, 95%CI (27.2-47.5)] in patients receiving an endoscopic compared to percutaneous management. This study underscores the importance of endoscopy-guided approaches for adequate treatment of anastomotic leakage and/or peri-anastomotic fluid collections after pancreatoduodenectomy. We herein report a novel, interdisciplinary concept for internal drainage in the setting of pancreato-gastric reconstruction.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Anastomotic leakage and postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) may occur after pancreatic head resection, also in the setting of pancreato-gastric reconstruction. For adequate complication management, a variety of non-standardized treatments are available. Still, data on clinical evaluation of endoscopic methods remain scarce. Based on our interdisciplinary experience on endoscopic treatment of retro-gastric fluid collections after left-sided pancreatectomies, we developed an innovative endoscopic concept with internal peri-anastomotic stent placement for patients with anastomotic leakage and/or peri-anastomotic fluid collection.
METHODS
Over the period of 6 years (2015-2020) we retrospectively evaluated 531 patients after pancreatic head resections at the Department of Surgery, Charité-Unversitätsmedizin Berlin. Of these, 403 received reconstruction via pancreatogastrostomy. We identified 110 patients (27.3%) with anastomotic leakage and/or peri-anastomotic fluid collection and could define four treatment groups which received either conservative treatment (C), percutaneous drainage (PD), endoscopic drainage (ED), and/or re-operation (OP). Patients were grouped in a step-up approach for descriptive analyses and in a stratified, decision-based algorithm for comparative analyses. The study's primary endpoints were hospitalization (length of hospital stay) and clinical success (treatment success rate, primary/secondary resolution).
RESULTS
We characterized an institutional, post-operative cohort with heterogenous complication management following pancreato-gastric reconstruction. The majority of patients needed interventional treatments (n = 92, 83.6%). Of these, close to one-third (n = 32, 29.1%) were treated with endoscopy-guided, peri-anastomotic pigtail stents for internal drainage as either primary, secondary and/or tertiary treatment modality. Following a decision-based algorithm, we could discriminate superior primary-(77,8% vs 53.7%) and secondary success rates (85.7% vs 68.4%) as well as earlier primary resolutions (11.4 days, 95%CI (5.75-17.13) vs 37.4 days, 95%CI (27.2-47.5)] in patients receiving an endoscopic compared to percutaneous management.
CONCLUSION
This study underscores the importance of endoscopy-guided approaches for adequate treatment of anastomotic leakage and/or peri-anastomotic fluid collections after pancreatoduodenectomy. We herein report a novel, interdisciplinary concept for internal drainage in the setting of pancreato-gastric reconstruction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36879165
doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-09964-1
pii: 10.1007/s00464-023-09964-1
pmc: PMC10322762
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5065-5076Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Surg Endosc. 2012 Jun;26(6):1710-7
pubmed: 22179480
JAMA Surg. 2017 Jun 1;152(6):548-549
pubmed: 28241218
J Gastrointest Surg. 2011 Nov;15(11):2080-8
pubmed: 21786063
Surg Endosc. 2013 Jul;27(7):2422-7
pubmed: 23361258
Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2019 Oct 24;12:1756284819884418
pubmed: 31695750
J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Aug;215(2):177-85
pubmed: 22634120
Surg Endosc. 2022 Jun;36(6):3708-3720
pubmed: 35246738
Surgery. 2021 Jun;169(6):1454-1455
pubmed: 33750597
J Am Coll Surg. 2014 Jan;218(1):33-40
pubmed: 24099888
Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 May;91(5):1085-1091.e1
pubmed: 31843369
World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jul 28;22(28):6456-68
pubmed: 27605881
World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Apr 21;24(15):1666-1678
pubmed: 29686474
Surg Endosc. 2018 May;32(5):2281-2287
pubmed: 29098435
J Am Coll Surg. 2008 Oct;207(4):490-8
pubmed: 18926450
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Aug;74(2):418-23
pubmed: 21679939
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Feb;89(2):311-319.e1
pubmed: 30179609
HPB (Oxford). 2019 Apr;21(4):434-443
pubmed: 30293867
J Gastrointest Surg. 2019 Mar;23(3):492-502
pubmed: 30187320
JAMA Surg. 2017 Jun 1;152(6):540-548
pubmed: 28241220
Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2018 Mar 15;11:105-118
pubmed: 29588609
Surgery. 2017 Mar;161(3):584-591
pubmed: 28040257
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Dec;76(6):1259-65
pubmed: 23021161
Surg Endosc. 2022 Sep;36(9):6361-6367
pubmed: 34888711
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan;16(1):11-26
pubmed: 30341417
J Clin Med. 2021 Jun 10;10(12):
pubmed: 34200840