Menu
Consensus & Guidelines, Perioperative Management, Surgical Techniques.

Consensus & Guidelines

Interactive Score Calculator
Postoperative pancreatic fistula: An international study group (ISGPF) definition.

Claudio Bassi, Christos Dervenis, Giovanni Butturini, Abe Fingerhut, Charles Yeo, Jakob Izbicki, John Neoptolemos, Michael Sarr, William Traverso, Marcus Buchler; International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition.
Surgery 138, 1, P8-13, 2005

Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH)–An International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition.

Moritz N. Wente, Johannes A. Veit, Claudio Bassi, Christos Dervenis, Abe Fingerhut, Dirk J. Gouma, Jakob R. Izbicki, John P. Neoptolemos, Robert T. Padbury, Michael G. Sarr, Charles J. Yeo, Markus W. Büchler.
Surgery 142, 1, P20-25, 2007

Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: A suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

Moritz N. Wente, Claudio Bassi, Christos Dervenis, Abe Fingerhut, Dirk J. Gouma, Jakob R. Izbicki, John P. Neoptolemos, Robert T. Padbury, Michael G. Sarr, L. William Traverso, Charles J. Yeo, Markus W. Büchler.
Surgery 142, 5, P761-768, 2007

Toward improving uniformity and standardization in the reporting of pancreatic anastomoses: A new classification system by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

Parul J. Shukla, Savio G. Barreto, Abe Fingerhut, Claudio Bassi, Markus W. Büchler, Christos Dervenis, Dirk Gouma, Jakob R. Izbicki, John Neoptolemos, Robert Padbury, Michael G. Sarr, William Traverso, Charles J. Yeo, Moritz N. Wente.
Surgery 147, 1, P144-153, 2010

Extended pancreatectomy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Definition and consensus of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

Werner Hartwig, Charles M. Vollmer, Abe Fingerhut, Charles J. Yeo, John P. Neoptolemos, Mustapha Adham, Åke Andrén-Sandberg, Horacio J. Asbun, Claudio Bassi, Max Bockhorn, Richard Charnley, Kevin C. Conlon, Christos Dervenis, Laureano Fernandez-Cruz, Helmut Friess, Dirk J. Gouma, Clem W. Imrie, Keith D. Lillemoe, Miroslav N. Milićević, Marco Montorsi, Shailesh V. Shrikhande, Yogesh K. Vashist, Jakob R. Izbicki, Markus W. Büchler, for the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery.
Surgery 156, 1, P1-14, 2014

Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: A consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

Maximilian Bockhorn, Faik G. Uzunoglu, Mustapha Adham, Clem Imrie, Miroslav Milicevic, Aken A. Sandberg, Horacio J. Asbun, Claudio Bassi, Markus Büchler, Richard M. Charnley, Kevin Conlon, Laureano Fernandez Cruz, Christos Dervenis, Abe Fingerhutt, Helmut Friess, Dirk J. Gouma, Werner Hartwig, Keith D. Lillemoe, Marco Montorsi, John P. Neoptolemos, Shailesh V. Shrikhande, Kyoichi Takaori, William Traverso, Yogesh K. Vashist, Charles Vollmer, Charles J. Yeo, Jakob R. Izbicki, for the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery.
Surgery 155, 6, P977-988, 2014

Definition of a standard lymphadenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

Johanna A.M.G. Tol, Dirk J. Gouma, Claudio Bassi, Christos Dervenis, Marco Montorsi, Mustapha Adham, Ake Andrén-Sandberg, Horacio J. Asbun, Maximilian Bockhorn, Markus W. Büchler, Kevin C. Conlon, Laureano Fernández-Cruz, Abe Fingerhut, Helmut Friess, Werner Hartwig, Jakob R. Izbicki, Keith D. Lillemoe, Miroslav N. Milicevic, John P. Neoptolemos, Shailesh V. Shrikhande, Charles M. Vollmer, Charles J. Yeo, Richard M. Charnley, for the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery.
Surgery 156, 3, P591-600, 2014

When to perform a pancreatoduodenectomy in the absence of positive histology? A consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery.

Horacio J. Asbun, Kevin Conlon, Laureano Fernandez-Cruz, Helmut Friess, Shailesh V. Shrikhande, Mustapha Adham, Claudio Bassi, Maximilian Bockhorn, Markus Büchler, Richard M. Charnley, Christos Dervenis, Abe Fingerhutt, Dirk J. Gouma, Werner Hartwig, Clem Imrie, Jakob R. Izbicki, Keith D. Lillemoe, Miroslav Milicevic, Marco Montorsi, John P. Neoptolemos, Aken A. Sandberg, Michael Sarr, Charles Vollmer, Charles J. Yeo, L. William Traverso, for the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery.
Surgery 155, 5, P887-892, 2014

The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After.

Claudio Bassi, Giovanni Marchegiani, Christos Dervenis, Micheal Sarr, Mohammad Abu Hilal, Mustapha Adham, Peter Allen, Roland Andersson, Horacio J. Asbun, Marc G. Besselink, Kevin Conlon, Marco Del Chiaro, Massimo Falconi, Laureano Fernandez-Cruz, Carlos Fernandez-del Castillo, Abe Fingerhut, Helmut Friess, Dirk J Gouma, Thilo Hackert, Jakob Izbicki, Keith D. Lillemoe, John P. Neoptolemos, Attila Olah, Richard Schulick, Shailesh V. Shrikhande, Tadahiro Takada, Kyoichi Takaori, William Traverso, Charles Vollmer, Christopher L. Wolfgang, Charles J. Yeo, Roberto Salvia, Marcus Buchler, from the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).
Surgery 161, 3, P584-591, 2017

Pancreatic anastomosis after pancreatoduodenectomy: A position statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

Shailesh V. Shrikhande, Masillamany Sivasanker, Charles M. Vollmer, Helmut Friess, Marc G. Besselink, Abe Fingerhut, Charles J. Yeo, Carlos Fernandez-delCastillo, Christos Dervenis, Christoper Halloran, Dirk J. Gouma, Dejan Radenkovic, Horacio J. Asbun, John P. Neoptolemos, Jakob R. Izbicki, Keith D. Lillemoe, Kevin C. Conlon, Laureano Fernandez-Cruz, Marco Montorsi, Max Bockhorn, Mustapha Adham, Richard Charnley, Ross Carter, Thilo Hackert, Werner Hartwig, Yi Miao, Michael Sarr, Claudio Bassi, Markus W. Büchler, for the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).
Surgery 161, 5, P1221-1234, 2017

Definition and classification of chyle leak after pancreatic operation: A consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery.

Marc G. Besselink, L. Bengt van Rijssen, Claudio Bassi, Christos Dervenis, Marco Montorsi, Mustapha Adham, Horacio J. Asbun, Maximillian Bockhorn, Oliver Strobel, Markus W. Büchler, Olivier R. Busch, Richard M. Charnley, Kevin C. Conlon, Laureano Fernández-Cruz, Abe Fingerhut, Helmut Friess, Jakob R. Izbicki, Keith D. Lillemoe, John P. Neoptolemos, Michael G. Sarr, Shailesh V. Shrikhande, Robert Sitarz, Charles M. Vollmer, Charles J. Yeo, Werner Hartwig, Christopher L. Wolfgang, Dirk J. Gouma, for the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery.
Surgery 161, 2, P365-372, 2017

Nutritional support and therapy in pancreatic surgery: A position paper of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

Luca Gianotti, Marc G. Besselink, Marta Sandini, Thilo Hackert, Kevin Conlon, Arja Gerritsen, Oonagh Griffin, Abe Fingerhut, Pascal Probst, Mohammed Abu Hilal, Giovanni Marchegiani, Gennaro Nappo, Alessandro Zerbi, Antonio Amodio, Julie Perinel, Mustapha Adham, Massimo Raimondo, Horacio J. Asbun, Asahi Sato, Kyoichi Takaori, Shailesh V. Shrikhande, Marco Del Chiaro, Maximilian Bockhorn, Jakob R. Izbicki, Christos Dervenis, Richard M. Charnley, Marc E. Martignoni, Helmut Friess, Nicolò de Pretis, Dejan Radenkovic, Marco Montorsi, Michael G. Sarr, Charles M. Vollmer, Luca Frulloni, Markus W. Büchler, Claudio Bassi.
Surgery 164, 5, P1035-1048, 2018

Standards for reporting on surgery for chronic pancreatitis: a report from the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

Ajith K. Siriwardena, John Windsor, Nicholas Zyromski, Giovanni Marchegiani, Dejan Radenkovic, Catherine Morgan, Ioannis Passas, Attila Olah, Kevin C. Conlon, Martin Smith, Olivier Busch, Minas Baltatzis, Marc G. Besselink, Charles Vollmer, Carlos Fernandez-del Castillo, Helmut Friess, Giuseppe Garcea, Sean Burmeister, Thilo Hackert, Keith D. Lillemoe, Richard Schulick, Shailesh V. Shrikhande, Andrew Smith, Luca Gianotti, Massimo Falconi, David Adams, Mustapha Adham, Roland Andersson, Marco Del Chiaro, John Devar, Santhalingam Jegatheeswaran, Hjalmar van Santvoort, Igor Khatkov, Jakob Izbicki, Markus Büchler, John P. Neoptolemos, Claudio Bassi, Christos Dervenis.
Surgery 168, 1, P101-105, 2020

Management of the pancreatic transection plane after left (distal) pancreatectomy: Expert consensus guidelines by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

Yi Miao, Zipeng Lu, Charles J. Yeo, Charles M. Vollmer, Carlos Fernandez-del Castillo, Paula Ghaneh, Christopher M. Halloran, Jörg Kleeff, Thijs de Rooij, Jens Werner, Massimo Falconi, Helmut Friess, Herbert J. Zeh, Jakob R. Izbicki, Jin He, Johanna Laukkarinen, Cees H. Dejong, Keith D. Lillemoe, Kevin Conlon, Kyoichi Takaori, Luca Gianotti, Marc G. Besselink, Marco Del Chiaro, Marco Montorsi, Masao Tanaka, Maximilian Bockhorn, Mustapha Adham, Attila Oláh, Roberto Salvia, Shailesh V. Shrikhande, Thilo Hackert, Tooru Shimosegawa, Amer H. Zureikat, Güralp O. Ceyhan, Yunpeng Peng, Guangfu Wang, Xumin Huang, Christos Dervenis, Claudio Bassi, John P. Neoptolemos, Markus W. Büchler, the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).
Surgery 168, 1, P72-84, 2020

Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery – A living systematic review with meta-analyses by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

Pascal Probst, Felix J. Hüttner, Ömer Meydan, Mohammed Abu Hilal, Mustapha Adham, Savio G. Barreto, Marc G. Besselink, Olivier R. Busch, Maximillian Bockhorn, Marco Del Chiaro, Kevin Conlon, Carlos Fernandez-del Castillo, Helmut Friess, Giuseppe Kito Fusai, Luca Gianotti, Thilo Hackert, Christopher Halloran, Jakob Izbicki, Eva Kalkum, Dezso Kelemen, Hannes G. Kenngott, Rüdiger Kretschmer, Vincent Landre, Keith D. Lillemoe, Yi Miao, Giovanni Marchegiani, Andre Mihaljevic, Dejan Radenkovic, Roberto Salvia, Marta Sandini, Alejandro Serrablo, Shailesh Shrikhande, Parul J. Shukla, Ajith K. Siriwardena, Oliver Strobel, Faik G. Uzunoglu, Charles Vollmer, Jürgen Weitz, Christopher L. Wolfgang, Alessandro Zerbi, Claudio Bassi, Christos Dervenis, John Neoptolemos, Markus W. Büchler, Markus K. Diener.
Surgery 170 (2021) 1517e1524

Post-pancreatectomy acute pancreatitis (PPAP): definition and grading from the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

Marchegiani, Giovanni; Barreto, Savio George; Bannone, Elisa; Sarr, Michael; Vollmer, Charles; Connor, Saxon; Falconi, Massimo|; Besselink, Marc G; Salvia, Roberto; Wolfgang, Christopher L.; Zyromski, Nicholas J.; Yeo, Charles J.; Adham, Mustapha; Siriwardena, Ajith K.; Takaori, Kyoichi; Hilal, Mohammad Abu; Loos, Martin; Probst, Pascal; Hackert, Thilo; Strobel, Oliver; Busch, Olivier R. C.; Lillemoe, Keith D.; Miao, Yi; Halloran, Christopher M.; Werner, Jens; Friess, Helmut; Izbicki, Jakob R.; Bockhorn, Maximillian; Vashist, Yogesh K.; Conlon, Kevin; Passas, Ioannis; Gianotti, Luca; Del Chiaro, Marco; Schulick, Richard D.; Montorsi, Marco; Oláh, Attila; Fusai, Giuseppe Kito; Serrablo, Alejandro; Zerbi, Alessandro; Fingerhut, Abe; Andersson, Roland; Padbury, Robert; Dervenis, Christos; Neoptolemos, John P.; Bassi, Claudio; Büchler, Markus W.; Shrikhande, Shailesh V.;  on behalf of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery.
Ann Surg 275(4):p 663-672, April 2022.

Complexity and Experience Grading to Guide Patient Selection for Minimally-invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy An ISGPS Consensus.

Barreto, S. George; Strobel, Oliver; Salvia, Roberto; Marchegiani, Giovanni; Wolfgang, Christopher L.; Werner, Jens; Ferrone, Cristina R.; Abu Hilal, Mohammed; Boggi, Ugo; Butturini, Giovanni; Falconi, Massimo; Fernandez-Del Castillo, Carlos; Friess, Helmut; Fusai, Giuseppe K.; Halloran, Christopher M.; Hogg, Melissa; Jang, Jin-Young; Kleeff, Jorg; Lillemoe, Keith D.; Miao, Yi; Nagakawa, Yuichi; Nakamura, Masafumi; Probst, Pascal; Satoi, Sohei; Siriwardena, Ajith K.; Vollmer, Charles M.; Zureikat, Amer; Zyromski, Nicholas J.; Asbun, Horacio J.; Dervenis, Christos; Neoptolemos, John P.; Büchler, Markus W.; Hackert, Thilo; Besselink, Marc G.; Shrikhande, Shailesh V.;  for the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery.
Ann Surg 2024

Prospective Validation of the Pancreatic Fistula Risk Classification by the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (PARIS trial).

Schuh, Fabian; Yildirim, Berk; Klotz, Rosa MD; Pianka, Frank MD; Boskovic, Andrea; Werba, Alexander; Fink, Matthias A. MD; Wild, Caroline MD; Schwab, Constantin MD; Eckert, Christoph MD; Feisst, Manuel PhD; Mihaljevic, André L.; Loos, Martin; Büchler, Markus; Probst, Pascal.
Ann Surg 2024

IPMN Interactive Algorithms
International consensus guidelines for management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms of the pancreas.

Masao Tanaka, Suresh Chari, Volkan Adsay, Fernandez-Del Carlos Castillo, Massimo Falconi, Michio Shimizu, Koji Yamaguchi, Kenji Yamao, Seiki Matsuno.
Pancreatology. 2006;6(1-2):17-32

International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas.

Masao Tanaka, Carlos Fernández-del Castillo, Volkan Adsay, Suresh Chari, Massimo Falconi, Jin-Young Jang, Wataru Kimura, Philippe Levy, Martha Bishop Pitman, C. Max Schmidt, Michio Shimizu, Christopher L. Wolfgang, Koji Yamaguchi, Kenji Yamao.
Pancreatology. 2012 May-Jun;12(3):183-97

European experts consensus statement on cystic tumours of the pancreas.

Marco Del Chiaroa, Caroline Verbeke, Roberto Salvia, Gunter Klöppel, Jens Werner, Colin McKay, Helmut Friess, Riccardo Manfredi, Eric Van Cutsem, Matthias Löhr, Ralf Segersvärd, the European Study Group on Cystic Tumours of the Pancreas.
Digestive and Liver Disease 45 (2013) 703–711

Italian consensus guidelines for the diagnostic work-up and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms.

Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists, AIGO
Italian Association for the Study of the Pancreas, AISP.
Digestive and Liver Disease 46 (2014) 479–493

Revisions of international consensus Fukuoka guidelines for the management of IPMN of the pancreas.

Masao Tanaka, Carlos Fernández-del Castillo, Terumi Kamisawa, Jin Young Jang, Philippe Levy, Takao Ohtsuka, Roberto Salvia, Yasuhiro Shimizu, Minoru Tada, Christopher L. Wolfgang.
Pancreatology. 2017 Sep-Oct;17(5):738-753.

International evidence-based Kyoto guidelines for the management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas.

Takao Ohtsuka, Carlos Fernandez-del Castillo, Toru Furukawa, Susumu Hijioka, Jin-Young Jang, Anne Marie Lennon, Yoshihiro Miyasaka, Eizaburo Ohno, Roberto Salvia, Christopher L. Wolfgang, Laura D. Wood.
Pancreatology 24 (2024) 255e270

Natural History of the Remnant Pancreatic Duct after Pancreatoduodenectomy for Non-Invasive Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm: Results from an International Consortium.

Rachel C Kim, Giampaolo Perri, Dario M Rocha Castellanos, Hyesol Jung, Michael J Kirsch, Greg D Sacks, Julie Perinel, Brian Goh, Max Heckler, Thilo Hackert, Mustapha Adham, Christopher Wolfgang, Marco Del-Chiaro, Richard Schulick, Jin-Young Jang, Carlos Fernandez Del Castillo, Roberto Salvia, Giovanni Marchegiani, Eugene P Ceppa, C Max Schmidt, Alex M Roch; Verona EBM Study Group on IPMN.
Annals of Surgery ():10.1097/SLA.0000000000006519, September 3, 2024

Pancreatic Cysts.

Tamas A. Gonda, Djuna L. Cahen, & James J. Farrell.
N Engl J Med 2024;391:832-43.

ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the management of patients with liver and other distant metastases from neuroendocrine neoplasms of foregut, midgut, hindgut, and unknown primary.

Marianne Pavel; Eric Baudin; Anne Couvelard; Eric Krenning; Kjell Öberg; Thomas Steinmüller; Martin Anlauf; Bertram Wiedenmann; Ramon Salazar; all other Barcelona Consensus Conference participants.
Neuroendocrinology 2012;95:157–176

ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the management of patients with digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms: functional pancreatic endocrine tumor syndromes.

Robert T. Jensen; Guillaume Cadiot; Maria L. Brandi; Wouter W. de Herder; Gregory Kaltsas; Paul Komminoth; Jean-Yves Scoazec; Ramon Salazar; Alain Sauvanet; Reza Kianmanesh; all other Barcelona Consensus Conference participants.
Neuroendocrinology 2012;95:98–119

ENETS Consensus Guidelines Update for the Management of Patients with Functional Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors and Non-Functional Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

M. Falconi; B. Eriksson; G. Kaltsas; D.K. Bartsch; J. Capdevila; M. Caplin; B. Kos-Kudla; D. Kwekkeboom; G. Rindi; G. Klöppel; N. Reed; R. Kianmanesh; R.T. Jensen; all other Vienna Consensus Conference participants.
Neuroendocrinology 2016;103:153–171

Treatment of metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: relevance of ENETS 2016 guidelines.

Margaux Foulfoin, Emmanuelle Graillot, Mustapha Adham, Pascal Rousset, Julien Forestier, Valérie Hervieu, Philip Robinson, Jean-Yves Scoazec,Catherine Lombard-Bohas & Thomas Walter.
Endocrine-Related Cancer (2017) 24, 71–81

European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society (ENETS) 2023 guidance paper for nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

Beata Kos-Kudła, Justo P Castaño, Timm Denecke, Enrique Grande, Andreas Kjaer, Anna Koumarianou, Louis de Mestier, Stefano Partelli, Aurel Perren Stefan Stättner, Juan W Valle, Nicola Fazio.
J Neuroendocrinol. 2023;35:e13343.

Neoadjuvant 177Lu-DOTATATE for non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NEOLUPANET): multicentre phase II study.

Stefano Partelli, Luca Landoni, Mirco Bartolomei, Alessandro Zerbi, Chiara Maria Grana, Ugo Boggi, Giovanni Butturini, Riccardo Casadei10, Roberto Salvia and Massimo Falconi.
BJS, 2024, Vol. 111, No. 9

Perioperative Management

Items
Evidence
Recommendation
1. Preoperative counseling
Moderate
Weak
2. Prehabilitation
Moderate
Strong
3. Preoperative biliary drainage avoided unless....
High
Strong
4. Stop smoking & alcohol
Moderate & High
Strong
5. Preoperative nutritional support >15% weight loss
High
Strong
6. Immunonutrition : not recommended
High
Strong
7. Preoperative fasting & carbohydrates treatment
Moderate
Strong
8. Pre-anesthetic medication
Moderate
Moderate
9. Anti-thrombotic prophylaxis
High
Strong
10. Antimicrobial prophylaxis & skin preparation
High & Moderate
Strong
11. Epidural analgesia
Moderate
Strong
12. Postoperative analgesia
Moderate
Strong
13. TAP block
High
Strong
14. PONV prophylaxis
Moderate
Strong
15. Avoid hypothermia
High
Strong
16. Postoperative glycemic control
Moderate
Strong
17. No NGT
Moderate
Strong
18. Avoid of fluid overload
Moderate
Strong
19. Early drain removal
High
Strong
20. Systematic use of somatostatin analogues
Moderate
Weak
21. Urinary drainage early removal
Low
Strong
22. DGE strategies
Low
Strong
23. Stimulation of bowel movement strategies
Moderate & Very low
Weak
24. Postoperative nutrition
Moderate
Strong
25. Mobilization
Low
Strong
26. Minimal invasive surgery : safety concerne
Low
Weak
27. Audit
Moderate
Strong
Items
Evidence
Recommendation
1. Preoperative counseling
Moderate
Strong
2. Perioperative nutrition
High
Strong
3. Perioperative oral immunonutrition
Low
Weak
4. Preoperative fasting & carbohydrates treatment
Moderate & Low
Strong & Weak
5. Oral bowel preparation
Low
Weak
6. Pre-anestheticmedication
Moderato
Strong
7. Anti-thromboticprophylaxis
Moderate & Low
Strong & Weak
8. Perioperative steroids administration
Moderate
Weak
9. Antimicrobial prophylaxis & skin preparation
Moderate
Strong
10. Incision
Moderate
Strong
11. Minimally invasive approach
Moderate & low
Strong & Weak
12. Prophylactic NGT
High
Strong
13. Prophylactic abdominal drainage
Low
Weak
14. Preventing intraoperative hypothermia
Moderate
Strong
15. Postoperative nutrition & early oral intake
Moderate & High
Weak & Strong
16. Postoperative glycaemic control
Moderate
Strong
17. DGE prevention
High
Strong
18. Stimulation of bowel movement
High
Strong
19. Early mobilization
Low
Weak
20. Analgesia
Moderate
Strong
21. PONV prevention
Moderate
Strong
22. Fluid management
Moderate
Strong
23. Audit
Moderate
Strong
Items
Evidence
Recommendation
1. Preoperative counseling
Low
Weak
2. Prehabilitation
Moderate
Weak
3. Preoperative biliary drainage
Moderate
Strong
4. Preoperative smoking and alcohol cessation
High
Strong
5. Preoperative nutrition
High
Strong
6. Perioperative oral immunonutrition
Low
Weak
7. Preoperative fasting and preoperative carbohydrate load
Moderate & Low
Strong & Weak
8. Pre-anesthetic medication
Moderate
Strong
9. Anti-thrombotic prophylaxis
Moderate
Strong
10. Preoperative steroids administration
Moderate
Weak
11. Antimicrobial prophylaxis and skin preparation
Moderate & Moderate
Weak & Strong
12. Minimally invasive surgery
Moderate
Strong
13. Epidural, postoperative intravenous, and postoperative per oral analgesia
High & Low
Strong & Weak
14. Wound catheter and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block
High
Strong
15. Prophylactic nasogastric intubation
High
Strong
16. Prophylactic abdominal drainage
High
Strong
17. Preventing intraoperative hypothermia
Moderate
Strong
18. Postoperative artificial nutrition and early oral intake
High
Strong
19. Postoperative glycemic control
High
Strong
20. Prevention of delayed gastric emptying (DGE)
Low
Weak
21. Stimulation of bowel movement
Moderate
Weak
22. Early and scheduled mobilization
Moderate
Strong
23. ostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis
High
Strong
24. Fluid management
High
Strong
25. Monitoring/Audit
Moderate
Strong
Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations.

Kristoffer Lassen, Marielle M E Coolsen, Karem Slim, Francesco Carli, José E de Aguilar-Nascimento, Markus Schäfer, Rowan W Parks, Kenneth C H Fearon, Dileep N Lobo, Nicolas Demartines, Marco Braga, Olle Ljungqvist, Cornelis H C Dejong; ERAS® Society; European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism; International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition.
Clin Nutr . 2012 Dec;31(6):817-30

Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Liver Surgery: Enhance Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations.

Emmanuel Melloul, Martin Hübner, Michael Scott, Chris Snowden, James Prentis, Cornelis H C Dejong, O James Garden, Olivier Farges, Norihiro Kokudo, Jean-Nicolas Vauthey, Pierre-Alain Clavien, Nicolas Demartines.
World  Surg . 2016 Oct;40(10):2425-2440

Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Pancreatoduodenectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Recommendations 2019.

Emmanuel Melloul, Kristoffer Lassen, Didier Roulin, Fabian Grass, Julie Perinel, Mustapha Adham, Erik Björn Wellge, Filipe Kunzler, Marc G. Besselink, Horacio Asbun, Michael J. Scott, Cornelis H. C. Dejong, Dionisos Vrochides, Thomas Aloia, Jakob R. Izbicki, Nicolas Demartines.
World J Surg 2020 Jul;44(7):2056-2084

Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Liver Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations 2022.

Gaëtan-Romain Joliat • Kosuke Kobayashi • Kiyoshi Hasegawa • John-Edwin Thomson • Robert Padbury • Michael Scott • Raffaele Brustia • Olivier Scatton • Hop S. Tran Cao • Jean-Nicolas Vauthey • Selim Dincler • Pierre-Alain Clavien • Stephen J. Wigmore • Nicolas Demartines • Emmanuel Melloul.
World J Surg (2023) 47:11–34.

ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Pancreas.
ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Pancreas.

R. Meiera, J. Ockenga, M. Pertkiewicz, A. Pap, N. Milinic, J. MacFie, DGEM: C. Löser, V. Keim.
Clinical Nutrition (2006) 25, 275–284

ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: Pancreas.

L. Gianotti, R. Meier, D.N. Lobo, C. Bassi, C.H.C. Dejong, J. Ockenga, O. Irtun, J. MacFie.
Clinical Nutrition 28 (2009) 428–435

ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in surgery.

Arved Weimann, Marco Braga, Franco Carli, Takashi Higashiguchi, Martin Hübner, Stanislaw Klek, Alessandro Laviano, Olle Ljungqvist, Dileep N. Lobo, Robert Martindale, Dan L. Waitzberg, Stephan C. Bischoff, Pierre Singer.
Clinical Nutrition 36 (2017) 623e650

Nutritional and Metabolic Derangements in Pancreatic Cancer and Pancreatic Resection.

Taylor M. Gilliland, Nicole Villafane-Ferriol, Kevin P. Shah, Rohan M. Shah, Hop S. Tran Cao, Nader N. Massarweh, Eric J. Silberfein, Eugene A. Choi, Cary Hsu, Amy L. McElhany,
Omar Barakat, William Fisher and George Van Buren II.
Nutrients . 2017 Mar 7;9(3):243.

Nutritional support and therapy in pancreatic surgery: A position paper of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

Luca Gianotti, Marc G. Besselink, Marta Sandini, Thilo Hackert, Kevin Conlon, Arja Gerritsen, Oonagh Griffin, Abe Fingerhut, Pascal Probst, Mohammed Abu Hilal, Giovanni Marchegiani, Gennaro Nappo, Alessandro Zerbi, Antonio Amodio, Julie Perinel, Mustapha Adham, Massimo Raimondo, Horacio J. Asbun, Asahi Sato, Kyoichi Takaori, Shailesh V. Shrikhande, Marco Del Chiaro, Maximilian Bockhorn, Jakob R. Izbicki, Christos Dervenis, Richard M. Charnley, Marc E. Martignoni, Helmut Friess, Nicolò de Pretis, Dejan Radenkovic, Marco Montorsi, Michael G. Sarr, Charles M. Vollmer, Luca Frulloni, Markus W. Büchler, Claudio Bassi.
Surgery 164, 5, P1035-1048, 2018

Consensus for the management of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency: UK practical guidelines.

Mary E Phillips, Andrew D Hopper, John S Leeds , Keith J Roberts , Laura McGeeney, Sinead N Duggan, Rajesh Kumar.
BMJ Open Gastro 2021;8:e000643.

Functional sequelae after pancreatic resection for cancer.

Andrea Mulliri, Michael Joubert, Marie-Astrid Piquet, Arnaud Alves, Benoît Dupont.
J Visc Surg . 2023 Dec;160(6):427-443.

Recent Advances in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Strategies to Optimise the Perioperative Nutritional Status in Pancreatoduodenectomy Patients.

James M. Halle-Smith, Sarah F. Powell-Brett, Lewis A. Hall, Sinead N. Duggan, Oonagh Griffin, Mary E. Phillips & Keith J. Roberts.
Cancers (Basel) . 2023 Apr 25;15(9):2466.

Re-assessing the role of peri-operative nutritional therapy in patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing surgery: a narrative review.

Zoi Bouloubasi, Dimitrios Karayiannis, Zoe Pafili, Avra Almperti, Konstantina Nikolakopoulou, Grigoris Lakiotis, George Stylianidis, Vasilios Vougas.
Nutr Res Rev . 2024 Jun;37(1):121-130.

📨🏠📝

Drainage Yes 🆚 No

  • In pancreatic head cancer, preoperative biliary drainage associated delay in surgery does not affect survival rate.
  • Routine drainage in patients with pancreatic head cancer is associated to ↗️ surgical complication.

Endoscopic 🆚 Percutaneous

  • One study prematurely ⛔️✋ for ↗️ mortality in percutaneous group.
  • Percutaneous biliary drainage ↘️ morbidities & ↘️ LoS.
  • In biliary cancer dissemination is ↗️ after Percutaneous drainage.

Plastic 🆚 Metal stent

  • No outcome difference.
  • Plastic stent ↗️ cost effective.
  • No superiority of uncovered self-expandable metal stent 🆚 plastic stent.
  • Stent dysfunction is ↘️ in fully covered self expandable metal stent.

Convered 🆚 Uncovered Metal Stent

  • Similar outcome but different mechanisms of stent dysfunction.
Preoperative biliary drainage for periampullary tumors causing obstructive jaundice; DRainage vs. (direct) OPeration (DROP-trial).

Niels A van der Gaag, Steve MM de Castro, Erik AJ Rauws, Marco J Bruno, Casper HJ van Eijck, Ernst J Kuipers, Josephus JGM Gerritsen, Jan-Paul Rutten6, Jan Willem Greve, Erik J Hesselink, Jean HG Klinkenbijl, Inne HM Borel Rinkes, Djamila Boerma, Bert A Bonsing, Cees J van Laarhoven, Frank JGM Kubben, Erwin van der Harst, Meindert N Sosef, Koop Bosscha, Ignace HJT de Hingh, Laurens Th de Wit, Otto M van Delden, Olivier RC Busch, Thomas M van Gulik, Patrick MM Bossuyt and Dirk J Gouma
BMC Surg . 2007 Mar 12:7:3.

The DROP-trial is a randomized controlled multicenter trial that will provide evidence whether or not preoperative biliary drainage is to be performed in patients with obstructive jaundice due to a periampullary tumor.

Therapeutic delay and survival after surgery for cancer of the pancreatic head with or without preoperative biliary drainage.

Eshuis, Wietse J.; van der Gaag, Niels A.; Rauws, Erik A.J.; van Eijck, Casper H.J.; Bruno, Marco J.; Kuipers, Ernst J.; Coene, Peter P.; Kubben, Frank J.G.M.; Gerritsen, Josephus J.G.M.; Greve, Jan Willem; Gerhards, Michael F.; de Hingh, Ignace H.J.T.; Klinkenbijl, Jean H.; Nio, C.Y.; de Castro, Steve M.M.; Busch, Olivier R.C.; van Gulik, Thomas M.; Bossuyt, Patrick M.M.; Gouma, Dirk J.
Ann Surg . 2010 Nov;252(5):840-9.

  • Resection was performed in 67% of Early Surgery group, versus 58% in the PBD group (P = 0.20).
  • Median survival was 12.2 (9.1-15.4) months versus 12.7 (8.9-16.6) months respectively (P = 0.91).
  • A longer time to surgery was significantly associated with slightly lower mortality.
Preoperative biliary drainage for cancer of the head of the pancreas.

Niels A. van der Gaag, Erik A.J. Rauws, Casper H.J. van Eijck, Marco J. Bruno, Erwin van der Harst, Frank J.G.M. Kubben, Josephus J.G.M. Gerritsen, & Dirk J. Gouma.
N Engl J Med . 2010 Jan 14;362(2):129-37.

  • The rates of serious complications Early Surgery = 39% BD = 74%.
  • BD was successful in 94% (one or more attempts).
  • BD complications occurred in 46%.
  • Surgery-related complications ES = 37% & BD = 47%.
  • Mortality and the length of hospital stay did not differ significantly.
Impact of preoperative biliary drainage on postoperative outcome after pancreaticoduodenectomy: An analysis of 1500 consecutive cases.

Matteo De PastenaGiovanni MarchegianiSalvatore PaiellaGiuseppe MalleoDebora CipraniClizia GaspariniErica SecchettinRoberto SalviaArmando GabbrielliClaudio Bassi.
Dig Endosc 2018 Nov;30(6):777-784

  • A total of 1500 patients were included.
    • 715 (47.6%) patients received biliary drain (stented group)
    • 258 (17.2%) patients did not (jaundiced group)
    • 528 (35.2%) patients represented the (control group).
  • No difference for Major complications & mortality rates.
  • Surgical site infections doubled in the stented group (18.1%) (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.5-2.8).
  • In jaundiced patients, a preoperative bilirubin value greater than 7.5 mg/dL (128 μmol/L) accurately predicted the likelihood of postoperative complications.
Impact of biliary drainage method before pancreaticoduodenectomy on short- and long-term outcomes in patients with periampullary carcinoma and obstructive jaundice: A multicenter retrospective analysis.
Yusuke Yamamoto, Teiichi Sugiura, Minoru Esaki, Yu Takahashi, Junichi Arita, Masaji Hashimoto, Yoshihiro Sakamoto, Masaru Konishi, Tsuyoshi Sano, Akifumi Notsu, Katsuhiko Uesaka, Kazuaki Shimada.
Surgery 2024 Sep;176(3):616-625
 
  • After Pancreaticoduodenectomy :
    • Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 morbidity were higher in the endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (21.9%; P = .001) or endoscopic transnasal biliary drainage (20.2%; P = .007) than in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (9.7%) groups.
  • In biliary tract cancer :
    • Dissemination was higher in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (15.3%) than in the endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (0.7%; P = .001) & endoscopic transnasal biliary drainage (4.1%; P = .037);
    • Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage was associated with worse DFS (P = .04).
  • In pancreatic cancer :
    • Dissemination & survival was comparable among the 3 drainage methods.
  • Albumin <3.9 g/dL had worse overall survival in pancreatic (P = .038) & biliary tract (P = .002) cancers
 
Biliary drainage in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction: results of an Italian consensus conference.

Marco Marzioni, Stefano Francesco Crinò, Andrea Lisotti, Lorenzo Fuccio, Giuseppe Vanella, Arnaldo Amato, Helga Bertani, Cecilia Binda, Chiara Coluccio, Edoardo Forti, Alessandro Fugazza, Dario Ligresti, Marcello Maida, Giovanni Marchegiani, Aurelio Mauro, Vincenzo Giorgio Mirante, Claudio Ricci, Giacomo Emanuele Maria Rizzo, Daniela Scimeca, Marco Spadaccini, Marianna Arvanitakis, Andrea Anderloni, Carlo Fabbri, Ilaria Tarantino, Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono; i-EUS Group.
Surg Endosc 2024

Consensus conference organized by i-EUS with the aim of providing an evidence based-guidance for the appropriate use of the techniques in patients with MBDO.

Metal or plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage in resectable pancreatic cancer.

J A M G TolJ E van HooftR Timmer F J G M KubbenE van der HarstI H J T de HinghF P VleggaarI Q MolenaarY C A KeulemansD BoermaM J BrunoE J SchoonN A van der GaagM G H BesselinkP FockensT M van GulikE A J RauwsO R C BuschD J Gouma
GUT 2016 Dec;65(12):1981-1987.

  • PBD with FCSEMS = 53 patients PS = 102 patients.
  • Patients’ characteristics did not differ.
  • PBD-related complication FCSEMS = 24% PS = 46% (relative risk of plastic stent use 1.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.2, p=0.011). 
  • Stent-related complications (occlusion and exchange) FCSEMS = 6% vs PS = 31%. Surgical complications did not differ, 40% vs 47%.
  • Overall complication rates for the FCSEMS, plastic stent and early surgery groups were 51% vs 74% vs 39%.
Metal versus plastic stents for drainage of malignant biliary obstruction before primary surgical resection.

Tae Jun Song, Jae Hoon Lee, Sang Soo Lee, Ji Woong Jang, Jung Wook Kim, Tae Jin Ok, Dong Wook Oh, Do Hyun Park, Dong Wan Seo, Sung Koo Lee, Myung-Hwan Kim, Song Cheol Kim, Chul Nam Kim, Sung Cheol Yun.
Gastrointest Endosc . 2016 Nov;84(5):814-821.

  • Endoscopic stents placement success = 100%.
  • Procedure-related adverse events plastic stent = 16.3% vs FCSEMS = 16.3%.
  • Reintervention plastic stent = 16.3%  & FCSEMS = 14.0%.
  • The interval to surgery after PBD (plastic stent =14.2 ± 8.3 vs FCSEMS = 12.3 ± 6.9 days, (P = .426).
  • Surgery-related adverse events PS = 43.6% & FCSEMS = 40.0%(P = .755).
Covered and uncovered biliary metal stents provide similar relief of biliary obstruction during neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer: a randomized trial.

Dong Wan SeoStuart ShermanKulwinder S DuaAdam SlivkaAndre RoyGuido CostamagnaJacques DeviereJoyce PeetermansMatthew RousseauYousuke NakaiHiroyuki IsayamaRichard KozarekBiliary SEMS During Neoadjuvant Therapy Study Group
Gastrointest Endosc . 2019 Oct;90(4):602-612.e4.

  • Sustained biliary drainage success
    • FCSEMSs = 72.2% & UCSEMSs = 72.9% (noninferiority P = .01).
  • Reasons for failure :
    • Tumor ingrowth FCSEMS = 0% vs UCSEMS = 16.7% (P<.01)
    • Stent migration FCSEMS 6.8% vs UCSEMS 0% (P = .03). 
  • Serious adverse event FCSEMS = 23.7% vs UCSEMS = 20.0%, P = .66.
  • Acute cholecystitis rates FCSEMS = 9.3% vs UCSEMS = 4.8%, P = .6.
  • Predictors of reinterventions were 4-cm stent length and presence of the gallbladder.
Fully covered self-expandable metal stent with an anti-migration system vs plastic stent for distal biliary obstruction caused by borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: A protocol for systematic review.

Takashi Tamura, Hiroki Yamaue, Masahiro Itonaga, Yuki Kawaji, Junya Nuta, Keiichi Hatamaru, Yasunobu Yamashita, Yuji Kitahata, Motoki Miyazawa, Seiko Hirono, Ken-ichi Okada, Manabu Kawai, Toshio Shimokawa, Masayuki Kitano.
Medicine (Baltimore) . 2020 Jan;99(3):e18718.

  • Protocol for systematic review.
A multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial for preoperative biliary drainage with uncovered metal versus plastic stents for resectable periampullary cancer.

Jae Hee ChoYoo-Seok YoonEui Joo KimYeon Suk KimJai Young ChoHo-Seong HanYeon Ho ParkDong Woo ShinJong-Chan LeeJin-Hyeok Hwang, Jaihwan Kim.
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci . 2020 Oct;27(10):690-699.

  • 60 patients, 53 were included for analysis (26 PS and 27 uSEMS).
  • Common bile duct cancer = 50.9%, Pancreatic head cancer = 37.7%.
  • Indication for PBD
    • Cholangitis = 67.9%,
    • Total bilirubin level of more than 10 mg/dL = 39.6%
    • Delayed surgery by more than 7 days = 18.9%.
  • Surgery :
    • Pancreaticoduodenectomy = 94.3%,
    • Palliative hepaticojejunostomy = 1.9%,
    • Median time to surgery = 11.0 days.
  • Reintervention rate PS = 3.8% vs uSEMS = 3.8% (P > .999).
  • PBD-related complication rate (23.1% and 22.2%, P > .999).
  • PBD- or surgery-related complication rate (57.7% & 48.1%, P = .674), rate of decrease of total bilirubin (P = .541).
  • The median hospital stay after surgery = 13.0 days with no significant difference.
Covered self-expandable metal stents versus plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage in patient receiving neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: Prospective randomized study.

Takashi Tamura, Masahiro Itonaga, Reiko Ashida, Yasunobu Yamashita, Keiichi Hatamaru, Yuki Kawaji, Tomoya Emori, Yuji Kitahata, Motoki Miyazawa, Seiko Hirono, Ken-ichi Okada, Manabu Kawai, Toshio Shimokawa, Hiroki Yamaue & Masayuki Kitano
Dig Endosc . 2021 Nov;33(7):1170-1178.

11 patients in each of the groups reached the primary endpoint. 

  • FCSEMS had lower stent dysfunction 18.2% vs. 72.8% for PS (P = 0.015) & longer stent patency (P = 0.02), 
  • FCSEMS had lower re-interventions for stent dysfunction 0.27 ± 0.65 vs. 1.27 ± 1.1 for PS, (P = 0.001).
  • The adverse events of EBD, operation time, volume of intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospitalization, postoperative adverse events & medical costs did not significantly differ between the two groups.
Fully covered metal stents vs plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer without neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial.

Koichiro MandaiTakayoshi TsuchiyaHiroshi KawakamiShomei RyozawaMichihiro Saitou, Tomohisa IwaiTakahisa OgawaTakashi TamuraShinpei DoYoshinobu OkabeYasutaka ChibaTakao Itoi.
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci . 2022 Nov;29(11):1185-1194.

Thirty-nine patients underwent surgery.

  • Reintervention : FCSEMS = None, PS = 5 (P = .023).
  • FCSEMS had more intraoperative blood loss (P = .0068) & AE (P = .011) & longer postoperative hospital stay (P = .016).
Endoscopic versus percutaneous biliary drainage in patients with resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

Robert J S Coelen, Eva Roos, Jimme K Wiggers, Marc G Besselink, Carlijn I Buis, Olivier R C Busch, Cornelis H C Dejong, Otto M van Delden, Casper H J van Eijck, Paul Fockens, Dirk J Gouma, Bas Groot Koerkamp, Michiel W de Haan, Jeanin E van Hooft, Jan N M IJzermans, G Matthijs Kater, Jan J Koornstra, Krijn P van Lienden, Adriaan Moelker, Steven W M Olde Damink, Jan-Werner Poley, Robert J Porte, Rogier J de Ridder, Joanne Verheij, Victor van Woerden, Erik A J Rauws, Marcel G W Dijkgraaf, Thomas M van Gulik.
Lancet Gastroentero Hepatol 2018 Oct;3(10):681-690.

The study was permaturely stopped because of higher all-cause mortality in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage of First Intent With a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study (ELEMENT Trial)

Yen-I Chen, Anand Sahai, Gianfranco Donatelli, Eric Lam, Nauzer Forbes, Jeffrey Mosko, Sarto C. Paquin, Fergal Donnellan, Avijit Chatterjee, Jennifer Telford, Corey Miller, Etienne Desilets, Gurpal Sandha, Sana Kenshil, Rachid Mohamed, Gary May, Ian Gan, Jeffrey Barkun, Natalia Calo, Abrar Nawawi, Gad Friedman, Albert Cohen, Thibaut Maniere, Prosanto Chaudhury, Peter Metrakos, George Zogopoulos, Ali Bessissow, Jad Abou Khalil Vicky Baffis, Kevin Waschke, Josee Parent, Constantine Soulellis, Mouen Khashab, Rastislav Kunda, Olivia Geraci, Myriam Martel, Kevin Schwartzman, Julio F. Fiore Jr, Elham Rahme, & Alan Barkun.
Gastroenterology 2023;165:1249–1261

144 patients were recruited; EUS-CDS = 73 & ERCP-M = 71.

  • Mean procedure time (min) EUS-CDS = 14.0 & ERCP-M = 23.1(P < .01).
  • Technical success was EUS-CDS = 90.4% & ERCP-M = 83.1% (risk difference = 7.3% indicating noninferiority).
  • Stent dysfunction EUS-CDS = 9.6% vs ERCP-M = 9.9% (P 1⁄4 .96).
  • No differences in adverse events, pancreaticoduodenectomy & oncologic outcomes, or quality of life were noted.

Surgical Techniques

Resection of the mesopancreas (RMP): a new surgical classificationof a known anatomical space.

Ines Gockel, Mario Domeyer, Tanja Wolloscheck, Moritz A Konerding & Theodor Junginger.
World J Surg Oncol . 2007 Apr 25:5:44.

To classify the anatomical-surgical layer of the mesopancreas and to describe the surgical principles relevant for resection of the mesopancreas (RMP)

Surgical technique and results of total mesopancreas excision (TMpE) in pancreatic tumors.

M Adham & J Singhirunnusorn.
Eur J Surg Oncol . 2012 Apr;38(4):340-5

Mesopancreas Triangle.

First description of the Surgical resection of the Mesopancreas TRIANGLE & oncologic outcome.

Pancreatoduodenectomy With Systematic Mesopancreas Dissection Using a Supracolic Anterior Artery-first Approach.

Inoue, Yosuke; Saiura, Akio; Yoshioka, Ryuji; Ono, Yoshihiro; Takahashi, Michiro; Arita, Junichi; Takahashi, Yu; Koga, Rintaro.
Ann Surg . 2015 Dec;262(6):1092-101.

To describe the details of the surgical technique of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) with systematic mesopancreas dissection (SMD-PD), using a supracolic anterior artery-first approach.

The TRIANGLE operation – radical surgery after neoadjuvant treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer: a single arm observational study.

Thilo Hackert, Oliver Strobel, Christoph W. Michalski, André L. Mihaljevic, Arianeb Mehrabi, Beat Müller-Stich, Christoph Berchtold, Alexis Ulrich & Markus W. Büchler.
HPB (Oxford) . 2017 Nov;19(11):1001-1007

Description of technique and initial outcomes of a new type of radical and arterial-sparing resection after neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced PDAC.

📨🏠📝

  • Internal stent 🆚 No stent
    • No difference in POPF (2 studies)
  • External stent 🆚 No stent
    • External drainage reduces POPF (3 studies) & overall morbidity (1 study) 
    • No difference in POPF (1 study)
  • Internal 🆚 External
    • No difference in POPF (1 study)

Meta-analyisis / Systematic review

  • Stenting 🆚 No tenting 
    • No difference (1 study)
    • External stent may be beneficial to reduce POPF (4 studies) & overall morbidity (1 study) & LoS (1 study)
  • Internal stent
    • Not useful & may increase the risk of POPF in soft pancreas (1 study)
  • Internal 🆚 external
    • No difference (1 study)
Does pancreatic duct stenting decrease the rate of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized trial.

Jordan M. Winter, John L. Cameron, Kurtis A. Campbell, David C. Chang, Taylor S. Riall, Richard D. Schulick, Michael A. Choti, JoAnn Coleman, Mary B. Hodgin, Patricia K. Sauter, Christopher J. Sonnenday, Christopher L. Wolfgang, Michael R. Marohn, Charles J. Yeo.
J Gastrointest Surg . 2006 Nov;10(9):1280-90

  • Hypothesis : internal duct stenting reduces pancreatic fistulas following PD.
  • Overall pancreatic fistula rate = 9.4%. Internal Stent = 1.7% versus No Stent = 4.8% (P = 0.4).
  • Fistula rates in soft pancreas the Internal Stent = 21.1% versus No Stent = 21.1% (P = 0.1). 
External drainage of pancreatic duct with a stent to reduce leakage rate of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized trial.

Ronnie T. P. Poon, Sheung Tat Fan, Chung Mau Lo, Kelvin K. Ng, Wai Key Yuen, Chun Yeung & John Wong.
Ann Surg . 2007 Sep;246(3):425-33;

  • External drainage stent versus no stent for pancreaticojejunal anastomosis
  • Pancreatic fistula Stent = 6.7% versus No Stent = 20% (P  0.032). 
  • No significant differences in 
    • Overall morbidity (P  0.444) 
    • Hospital mortality (P  0.309). 
    • LoS Stent = 17 vs. No Stent = 23 days (P  0.039). 
  • Significant risk factors for pancreatic fistula :
    • No stenting,
    • Pancreatic duct diameter 3.
Stenting versus non-stenting in pancreaticojejunostomy: a prospective study limited to a normal pancreas without fibrosis sorted by using dynamic MRI.

Kuroki, Tamotsu; Tajima, Yoshitsugu; Kitasato, Amane; Adachi, Tomohiko; Kanematsu, Takashi.
Pancreas . 2011 Jan;40(1):25-9.

  • External  stent versus No-stent to prevent pancreatic fistula in the non fibrotic pancreas.
  • No significant differences in the incidence or severity of pancreatic fistula :
    • ES = 34.5% (grade A = 3 & grade B = 5)
    • NS = 40.9% (grade A = 3 & grade B = 6). 
External pancreatic duct stent decreases pancreatic fistula rate after pancreaticoduodenectomy: prospective multicenter randomized trial.

Pessaux, Patrick; Sauvanet, Alain; Mariette, Christophe; Paye, François; Muscari, Fabrice; Cunha, Antonio; Sastre, Bernard Arnaud, Jean-Pierre. Fédération de Recherche en Chirurgie (French).
Ann Surg . 2011 May;253(5):879-85.

  • To compare external drainage stent versus no stent
  • Overall : Mortality = 3.8% , Morbidity = 51.8%, & PF = 34.2%. 
  • Pancreatic Fistula : External Stent = 26% vs. No-Stent = 42% (P = 0.034), 
  • Morbidity : External Stent = 41.5% vs. No-Stent = 61.7% (P = 0.01)
  • DGE  : External Stent = 7.8% vs. No-Stent = 27.2% (P = 0.001) 
  • Mortality rate : External Stent = 3.7% vs. No-Stent = 3.9% (P = 0.37)
  • LoS : External Stent = 22 days vs. No-Stent = 26 days (P = 0.11).
Randomized clinical trial of external stent drainage of the pancreatic duct to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticojejunostomy.

F. Motoi, S. Egawa, T. Rikiyama, Y. Katayose & M. Unno.
Br J Surg . 2012 Apr;99(4):524-31.

  • External Stent versus No-stent to decrease pancreatic fistula.
  • Clinically relevant POPF : External stent = 6% versus Non-stent = 22%(P = 0·040). 
  • Dilated duct : rates of POPF were similar.
  • Non-dilated duct clinically relevant POPF : External stent = 10% versus Non-stent = 40%(P = 0·033). 
  • No significant differences in morbidity or mortality. 
  • Significant risk factors for clinically relevant POPF :
    • High BMI (P = 0·008), 
    • Non-dilated duct (P = 0·046) 
    • No stent (P = 0·004).
Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after intraoperative pancreatic duct stent placement during pancreaticoduodenectomy.

J J Xiong, K Altaf, R Mukherjee, W Huang, W M Hu, A Li, N W Ke, X B Liu.
Br J Surg . 2012 Aug;99(8):1050-61.

  • Stent versus no stent, & internal versus external stent.
  • 5 RCTs 11 non-randomized OCS, 1726 pts
  • Meta-analysis of RCTs
    • Stent did not reduce the incidence of POPF.
    • External stents had no advantage over internal stents in terms of clinical outcome.
  • Subgroup analyses revealed that External stent significantly reduced
    • Pancreatic fistula (RCTs P = 0·004; OCS: P < 0·001),
    • DGE (RCTs: OR 0·41, 0·19 to 0·87, P = 0·02)
  • Postoperative morbidity (P = 0·02).
Stents for the prevention of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Zhiyong Dong, Jing Xu, Zhen Wang, Maxim S Petrov.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2013 Jun 26:(6):CD008914.

  • A total of 656 patients were included in the systematic review.
  • External & Internal were not associated with significant change in any of the studied outcomes. 
  • In a subgroup analysis External stent reduce
    • POPF (P = 0.04),
    • Incidence of complications (P = 0.03)
    • LoS (P = 0.002). 
  • In RCTs on the use of internal versus external stents, no  significant difference was found.
External stent versus no stent for pancreaticojejunostomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Shukun Hong, Hongye Wang, Shiyong Yang, Kunxing Yang.
J Gastrointest Surg . 2013 Aug;17(8):1516-25.

  • 4 RCTs, 416 pts.
  • External stent reduce
    • POPF (P = 0.001),
    • Overall morbidity (P = 0.03),
    • LoS (P = 0.001). 
  • No significant difference was found in terms of
    • hospital mortality,
    • DGE,
    • Operation time,
    • Operative blood loss,
    • Blood replacement,
    • Reoperation rate
Internal pancreatic duct stent does not decrease pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatic resection: a meta-analysis.

Yu Zhou , Quanbo Zhou, Zhihua Li, Rufu Chen.
Am J Surg . 2013 Jun;205(6):718-25.

  • 7 articles including 724 patients were identified for inclusion: 1 RCT, 1 quasi-RCT, 5 OCs. 
  • No significant differences regarding operative outcomes. 
  • Internal stent :
    • POPF (P = .31),
    • Hospital mortality (P = .64),
    • DGE (P = .17),
    • Risk of pancreatic fistulas in soft pancreases (P = .05),
    • Morbidity (P = .04)
External pancreatic duct stent reduces pancreatic fistula: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Krishen Patel, Anthony Teta, Prashant Sukharamwala, Jonathan Thoens, Mauricio Szuchmacher, Peter DeVito
Int J Surg . 2014;12(8):827-32.

  • Efficacy of external pancreatic duct stent placement in preventing POPF
  • 4 trials, 416 patients.
  • External stent reduce
    • POPF (p 1⁄4 0.0001)
    • Clinically significant POPF (grade B or C) (p 1⁄4 0.0009).
    • LoS (p 1⁄4 0.001)
Internal stenting across the pancreaticojejunostomy anastomosis and main pancreatic duct after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Kamaldeep Singh , Lileswar Kaman, Cherring Tandup, Niladri Raypattanaik , Divya Dahiya , Arunanshu Behera.
Pol Przegl Chir . 2021 Feb 6;93(3):1-5

  • Internal stent versus No stent
  • POPF = 46%; No stent = 40% versus Internal stent 52% (p 0.156)
  • DGE 16%; No stent = 5 pts versus Internal stent = 3 pts (p-0.366). 
  • 6 patients developed superficial surgical site infection No stent = 2 pts versus Internal stent = 4 pts (p-0.445). 
  • LoS was comparable in two groups. 
  • No mortality.
Pancreaticojejunostomy without pancreatic duct stent after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: preliminary outcomes from a prospective randomized controlled trial.

He Cai, Fei Lu, Man Zhang, Yunqiang Cai, Xin Wang, Yongbin Li, Lingwei Meng, Pan Gao, Bing Peng.
Surg Endosc . 2022 May;36(5):3629-3636.

  • Laparoscopy 90 pts : No stent versus Internal stent.
  • Soft pancreas No stent = 65.9% versus Internal stent 38.8% (P = 0.010). 
  • CR-POPF = 5.6%; No stent = 4.9% Internal stent = 6.1% (P = 1.000). 
Does pancreatic duct stent placement lead to decreased postoperative pancreatic fistula rates after pancreaticoduodenectomy? A meta-analysis.

Chenchen Guo, Bin Xie, Diandian Guo.
Int J Surg . 2022 Jul:103:106707.

  • 7 RCTs, 847 pts. Stent versus No stent. 
  • Stent versus No stent, no difference
    • POPF (P = 0.41), 
    • In-hospital mortality, 
    • Reoperation, 
    • DGE
    • Wound infection. 
  • Subgroup analyses : external stent reduced POPF (RP = 0.005)
Stent placement for the prevention of clinically-relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticojejunostomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ying Sun, Yongfeng Li, Zhiqiang Liu, Tao Peng, Chunyou Wang, Heshui Wu, Shanmiao Gou.
Am J Surg . 2024 Aug:234:122-128.

  • To analyse Stent versus No stent, Internal versus External, Stent size, & pancraetic duct dilatation.
  • 12 RCTs, 1117 pts. 
  • Stent vs No stent did not reduce CR-POPF (P  =  0.07). 
  • Subgroup analysis revealed
    • only external stents reduced CR-POPF compared with no stent (P  =  0.05 vs. P  =  0.89).
    • Stent in pancreatic duct ≤3  mm & not >3  mm,  reduced CR-POPF compared with no stent (P  =  0.02 vs. P  =  0.50).
A prospective randomized controlled trial of internal versus external drainage with pancreaticojejunostomy for pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Masaji Tani, Manabu Kawai, Seiko Hirono, Shinomi Ina, Motoki Miyazawa, Atsushi Shimizu, Hiroki Yamaue.
Am J Surg . 2010 Jun;199(6):759-64.

  • To compare internal drainage versus external drainage.
  • The incidence of pancreatic fistula (ISGPS definition) :
    • External drain = 20% vs Internal drain = 26%.
  • Incidence of the other complications was similar.
  • LoS (Median-days) External drain = 24 Internal drain = 21 (P = .016).
Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after intraoperative pancreatic duct stent placement during pancreaticoduodenectomy.

J J Xiong, K Altaf, R Mukherjee, W Huang, W M Hu, A Li, N W Ke, X B Liu.
Br J Surg . 2012 Aug;99(8):1050-61.

  • Stent versus no stent, & internal versus external stent.
  • 5 RCTs 11 non-randomized OCS, 1726 pts
  • Meta-analysis of RCTs
    • Stent did not reduce the incidence of POPF.
    • External stents had no advantage over internal stents in terms of clinical outcome.
  • Subgroup analyses revealed that External stent significantly reduced
    • Pancreatic fistula (RCTs P = 0·004; OCS: P < 0·001),
    • DGE (RCTs: OR 0·41, 0·19 to 0·87, P = 0·02)
  • Postoperative morbidity (P = 0·02).
Stents for the prevention of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Zhiyong Dong, Jing Xu, Zhen Wang, Maxim S Petrov.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2013 Jun 26:(6):CD008914.

  • A total of 656 patients were included in the systematic review.
  • External & Internal were not associated with significant change in any of the studied outcomes. 
  • In a subgroup analysis External stent reduce
    • POPF (P = 0.04),
    • Incidence of complications (P = 0.03)
    • LoS (P = 0.002). 
  • In RCTs on the use of internal versus external stents, no  significant difference was found.
Internal pancreatic duct stent does not decrease pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatic resection: a meta-analysis.

Yu Zhou , Quanbo Zhou, Zhihua Li, Rufu Chen.
Am J Surg . 2013 Jun;205(6):718-25.

  • 7 articles including 724 patients were identified for inclusion: 1 RCT, 1 quasi-RCT, 5 OCs. 
  • No significant differences regarding operative outcomes. 
  • Internal stent :
    • POPF (P = .31),
    • Hospital mortality (P = .64),
    • DGE (P = .17),
    • Risk of pancreatic fistulas in soft pancreases (P = .05),
    • Morbidity (P = .04)
Are Internal or External Pancreatic Duct Stents the Preferred Choice for Patients Undergoing Pancreaticoduodenectomy? A Meta-Analysis.

Yajie Zhao, Jianwei Zhang, Zhongmin Lan, Qinglong Jiang, Shuisheng Zhang, Yunmian Chu, Yingtai Chen, & Chengfeng Wang.
Biomed Res Int . 2017:2017:1367238.

  • No differences in the rates of postoperative complications between Internal & External stents.
  • Internal stents may be
    • More favorable during postoperative management of drainage tube.
    • Could reduce the digestive fluid loss and benefit the digestive function.
Internal stenting across the pancreaticojejunostomy anastomosis and main pancreatic duct after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Kamaldeep Singh , Lileswar Kaman, Cherring Tandup, Niladri Raypattanaik , Divya Dahiya , Arunanshu Behera.
Pol Przegl Chir . 2021 Feb 6;93(3):1-5

  • Internal stent versus No stent
  • POPF = 46%; No stent = 40% versus Internal stent 52% (p 0.156)
  • DGE 16%; No stent = 5 pts versus Internal stent = 3 pts (p-0.366). 
  • 6 patients developed superficial surgical site infection No stent = 2 pts versus Internal stent = 4 pts (p-0.445). 
  • LoS was comparable in two groups. 
  • No mortality.
THM

📨🏠📝

  • POPF
    • No difference (4 studies) ; Grade B/C no difference (1 study)
    • Favour PG (4 studies)
  • Severity of complication 
    • No difference (2 studies)
  • 👍 PG

    • ↘️ Biliary fistula (2 studies) ↘️ DGE (1 study)
      ↘️ Multiple surgical complications (1 study) ↘️ LoS (1 study)
      ↘️ Gastric reflux, pain & abdominal discomfort (1 study)
      ↘️ Intraabdominal fluide collection (1 study); No difference (2 studies)

  • 👎 PG
    • ↗️ Postoperative bleeding (1 study)
    • ↗️ Calvien-Dindo Grade ≥ 3 morbidity (1 study)
  • Global QoL
    • Equal (1 study)
  • Meta-analysis 
    • Provide equal results (1 meta-analysis)
    • PG ↘️ POPF based on ISGPF criteria (1 meta-analysis)
A prospective randomized trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
C J Yeo, J L Cameron, M M Maher, P K Sauter, M L Zahurak, M A Talamini, K D Lillemoe, H A Pitt.

Ann Surg . 1995 Oct;222(4):580-8

  • PG = 73 pts & PJ = 72 pts
  • Overall incidence of pancreatic fistula = 11.7%.
  • Pancreatic fistula was similar after PG = 12.3% and PJ = 11.1%.
  • Pancreatic fistula was associated with a significant prolongation of LoS (p < 0.001).
  • Increasing the risk of pancreatic fistula
    • Univariate analysis (p < 0.05) :
      • Ampullary or duodenal disease,
      • Soft pancreatic texture,
      • Longer operative time,
      • Greater intraoperative red blood cell transfusions,
      • Lower surgical volume.
    • Multivariate analysis :
      • Lower surgical volume
      • Ampullary or duodenal disease.
A controlled randomized multicenter trial of pancreatogastrostomy or pancreatojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Jean-Pierre Duffas, Bertrand Suc, Simon Msika, Gilles Fourtanier, Fabrice Muscari, Jean Marie Hay, Abe Fingerhut, Bertrand Millat, Alexandre Radovanowic, Pierre-Louis Fagniez; French Associations for Research in Surgery.
Am J Surg . 2005 Jun;189(6):720-9

  • 149 randomized patients, PG = 81 & PJ = 68. 
  • Rate of intraabdominal complications = 34% in each group.
  • Pancreatic fistula PG = 16% & PJ = 20%.
  • No statistically significant difference was found :
    • Mortality rate (11% overall),
    • Reoperations,
    • Postoperative interventional radiology,
    • Drainages (23%),
    • LoS (median 20.5 days). 
  • Univariate analysis found the following risk factors:
    • Age ≥ 70 years,
    • Extrapancreatic disease,
    • Normal consistency of pancreas,
    • Main pancreatic duct <3 mm,
    • Operative time >6 hours,
    • Center effect. 
  • In multivariate analysis,
    • Operative time >6 hours for IAC & for pancreatoenteric fistula (P = .01),
    • Extrapancreatic disease for pancreatoenteric fistulas (P < .04),
    • Age  ≥ 70 years for mortality (P < .02).
Reconstruction by pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy following pancreatectomy: results of a comparative study.

Claudio Bassi, Massimo Falconi, Enrico Molinari, Roberto Salvia, Giovanni Butturini, Nora Sartori, William Mantovani, & Paolo Pederzoli.
Ann Surg . 2005 Dec;242(6):767-71

  • Incidence of surgical complications = 34% :
    • PG = 29% vs PJ = 39% (P  not significant). 
  • PG lower rate of multiple surgical complications (P  0.002). 
  • Pancreatic fistula = 14.5% PG = 13% its PJ = 16% (not significant). 
  • Equal second surgical intervention; 
  • Postoperative mortality rate was 0.6%. 
  • PG was favored over PJ in :
    • Postoperative collections (P  0.01),
    • DGE (P  0.03),
    • Biliary fistula (P  0.01). 
  • Los was comparable.
Quality of life and functional long-term outcome after partial pancreatoduodenectomy: pancreatogastrostomy versus pancreatojejunostomy.

Ursula Schmidt, Denis Simunec, Pompiliu Piso, Jürgen Klempnauer & Hans J. Schlitt.
Ann Surg Oncol . 2005 Jun;12(6):467-72

  • PG group,
    • Significant reduction of :
      • gastric acid reflux,
      • gastroduodenal ulcers,
      • pain.
    • Significant increase in
      • steatorrhea,
      • intolerance toward larger meals,
      • aversion against certain foods. 
  • PJ group,
    • No significant change of preoperative symptoms except for jaundice. 
  • Similar outcome for :
    • Incidence of diabetes mellitus
    • Need for pancreatic enzyme substitution had increased significantly but similarly in both groups. 
  • The global quality of life was identical in both groups of patients.
Meta-analysis of pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

A. McKay1, S. Mackenzie1, F. R. Sutherland1, O. F. Bathe1, C. Doig2, J. Dort1,2, C. M. Vollmer Jr3 and E. Dixon1.
BJS 2006; 93: 929–936

  • 11 articles : 1 RCT, 2 non-RCT & 8 observational cohort studies. 
  • The meta-analysis revealed for PJ had a higher rate :
    • Pancreatic fistula,
    • Overall morbidity,
    • Mortality
Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Moritz N Wente, Shailesh V Shrikhande, Michael W Müller, Markus K Diener, Christoph M Seiler, Helmut Friess, Markus W Büchler.
Am J Surg . 2007 Feb;193(2):171-83

  • Meta-analysis of 3 RCT revealed no significant difference between PJ and PG regarding :
    • Overall postoperative complications,
    • Pancreatic fistula,
    • Intra-abdominal fluid collection,
    • Mortality.
  • 13 non-RCTs in favor of PG for :
    • Pancreatic fistula,
    • Mortality.
Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre randomised trial.

Baki Topal, Steffen Fieuws, Raymond Aerts, Joseph Weerts, Tom Feryn, Geert Roeyen, Claude Bertrand, Catherine Hubert, Marc Janssens, Jean Closset, on behalf of the Belgian Section of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery.
Lancet Oncol . 2013 Jun;14(7):655-62

  • PJ = 167 and PG = 162
  • Clinical Panceatic Fistula :
    • PJ = 19.8% versus PG = 8.0% (p=0.002). 
  • Postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the groups.
  • More events in the PJ were of grade ≥3a than PG (39 vs 35).
Meta-analysis of pancreaticogastrostomy versuspancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

J J Xiong, C L Tan, P Szatmary, W Huang, N W Ke, W M Hu, Q M Nunes, R Sutton, X B Liu.
Br J Surg . 2014 Sep;101(10):1196-208

  • 7 RCTs with 1121 patients. 
    • 4 applied ISGPS definitions Pancreatic Fistula. 
  • Using ISGPF definitions
    • Incidence of POPF was lower in PG than PJ (P < 0·001). 
  • Using definitions applied by each individual study, PG was associated with significantly lower rates of :
    • POPF (P < 0·001),
    • Intra-abdominal fluid collection (P < 0·001)
      Biliary fistula (P = 0·03).
Pancreaticogastrostomy is associated with significantly less pancreatic fistula than pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trials.

Fu-Bao Liu, Jiang-Ming Chen, Wei Geng, Sheng-Xue Xie, Yi-Jun Zhao, Li-Quan Yu & Xiao-Ping Geng.
HPB 2015, 17, 123–130

  • 7 RCTs, 1121 patients (PJ = 559 & PG = 562)
  • Pancreatic fistula PG = 10.6% versus PJ 18.5% (P = 0.0002),
  • Biliary fistula PG = 2.3% versus PJ 5.7% (P = 0.03)
  • Intra-abdominal fluid collection PG = 8.0% versus PJ = 14.7% (P = 0.0005)
  • LoS lower in PG (P = 0.008). 
  • Severe pancreatic fistula (grades B or C) PG = 8.3% versus PJ = 20.5% (P < 0.00001). 
  • No significant difference in
    • Morbidity PG = 48.9% versus PJ = 51.0% (P = 0.41),
    • Mortality PG = 3.2% versus PJ = 3.5% (P = 0.56),
    • DGE PG = 16.6% versus PJ = 14.7% (P = 0.94),
    • Postoperative haemorrhage PG = 9.6% versus PJ = 11.1% (P = 0.35)
    • Reoperation PG = 9.9% versus PJ 9.8% (P = 0.73).
The impact of pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction on pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Julie Hallet, Francis S. W. Zih, Raymond G. Deobald, Adena S. Scheer, Calvin H. L. Law, Natalie G. Coburn & Paul J. Karanicolas.
HPB (Oxford) . 2015 Feb;17(2):113-22

  • 4 RCTs including 676 patients. 
  • PG reduced the risk for PF. 
  • Absolute risk reduction for PF was 4% in low-risk patients compared with 10% in high-risk patients undergoing PG rather than PJ. 
  • The strength of evidence for PF outcome was moderate according to the GRADE classification.
Pancreatogastrostomy Versus Pancreatojejunostomy for RECOnstruction After PANCreatoduodenectomy (RECOPANC, DRKS 00000767): Perioperative and Long-term Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Tobias Keck, U. F. Wellner, M. Bahra, F. Klein, O. Sick, M. Niedergethmann, T. J. Wilhelm, S. A. Farkas, T. Börner, C. Bruns, A. Kleespies, J. Kleeff, A. L. Mihaljevic, W. Uhl, MD,yy A. Chromik, V. Fendrich, K. Heeger, W. Padberg, A. Hecker, U. P. Neumann, K. Junge, J. C. Kalff, T. R. Glowka, J. Werner, MD, P. Knebel, P. Piso, M. Mayr, J. Izbicki, Y. Vashist, P. Bronsert, T. Bruckner, R. Limprecht, M. K. Diener, I. Rossion, I. Wegener, and U. T. Hopt.
Ann Surg . 2016 Mar;263(3):440-9.

  • 440 patients were randomized, 320 included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 
  • No significant difference in the rate of grade B/C fistula after PG = 20% versus PJ = 22% (P = 0.617). 
  • The overall incidence of grade B/C fistula = 21%, 
  • In-hospital mortality = 6%. 
  • Multivariate analysis POPF : soft pancreatic texture (P = 0.016) was the only independent risk factor. 
  • Compared with PJ, PG was associated with an increased rate of
    • Grade A/B bleeding events,
    • Perioperative stroke,
    • Less enzyme supplementation at 6 months,
    • Improved results in some quality of life parameters.
Pancreaticogastrostomy is superior to pancreaticojejunostomy for prevention of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Benjamin Menahem, Lydia Guittet, Andrea Mulliri, Arnaud Alves, Jean Lubrano.
Ann Surg . 2015 May;261(5):882-7.

  • 7 trials, PG = 562 pts & PJ 559 pts. 
  • Pancreatic fistula rate was significantly lower in the PG = 11.2% versus PJ = 18.7% (P = 0.0003). 
  • Overall mortality rate was PG = 3.7% versus PJ = 3.9%(P = 0.68).
  • Biliary fistula rate was significantly lower in the PG = 2.0% versus PJ = 4.8% (P = 0.03).
Pancreaticojejunostomy With Externalized Stent vs Pancreaticogastrostomy With Externalized Stent for Patients With High-Risk Pancreatic Anastomosis: A Single-Center, Phase 3, Randomized Clinical Trial.

Stefano Andrianello, Giovanni Marchegiani, Giuseppe Malleo, Gaia Masini, Alberto Balduzzi, Salvatore Paiella, Alessandro Esposito, Luca Landoni, Luca Casetti, Massimiliano Tuveri, Roberto Salvia, Claudio Bassi.
JAMA Surg . 2020 Apr 1;155(4):313-321.

  • 604 patients screened; 82 were at high risk for POPF PG = 36 pts & PJ = 36 pts.
  • POPF
    • No significant difference PG = 50.0% versus PJ =38.9% (P = .48),
    • In POPF patients, the mean (SD) average complication burden was lower for PJ than PG (P = .04). 
  • Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage :
    • PG = 38.9% PJ = 25.0% (P = .31) 
  • DGE :
    • PG = 44.4% vs PJ = 50.0% (P = .81) 
  • Incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 morbidity PG = 47.2% versus PJ = 22.2% (P = .047).

📨🏠📝

Antecolique 🆚 Retrocolic

  • AC ↘️ morbidity, DGE & LoS
  • RC 🚫 DGE advantage
  • No difference in DGE
  • RC ↘️ incidence of DGE
  • AC no incidence on DGE & similar outcome to RC

Meta-analyisis / Systematic review

  • Antecolic ↘️ DGE (2 studies)
  • No difference in DGE (3 studies).
Improvement of delayed gastric emptying in pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Masaji Tani, Hiroshi Terasawa, Manabu Kawai, Shinomi Ina, Seiko Hirono, Kazuhisa Uchiyama, & Hiroki Yamaue.
Ann Surg . 2006 Mar;243(3):316-20.

  • DGE occurred in Antecolic = 5% Retrocolic = 50% (P  0.0014).
  • Post-operative NGT duration AC = 4.2 days RC = 18.9 days (P  0.047).
  • Solide food intake by day 14 AC = all patients & RC = 55% (P  0.0007).
  • LoS AC = 28 days & RC = 48 days (P  0.018).
Prospective randomized controlled study of gastric emptying assessed by (13)C-acetate breath test after pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: comparison between antecolic and vertical retrocolic duodenojejunostomy.

Kazuo Chijiiwa, Naoya Imamura, Jiro Ohuchida, Masahide Hiyoshi, Motoaki Nagano, Kazuhiro Otani, Masahiro Kai, Kazuhiro Kondo.
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg . 2009;16(1):49-55.

  • DGE, (inability of patients to take in an appropriate amount of solid food orally by POD 14).
  • Antecolic = 6% versus vertical retrocolic = 22% (P = 0.34).
  • Gastric emptying variables (Tmax, T1/2) on POD 30 were prolonged in both groups in comparison to preoperative levels, but no significant difference was found between the two groups.
  • DGE had recovered by POD 30 in approximately 80% of the patients, regardless of the reconstruction route.
Effect of antecolic or retrocolic reconstruction of the gastro/duodenojejunostomy on delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

Rajesh Gangavatiker, Sujoy Pal, Amit Javed, Nihar Ranjan Dash, Peush Sahni, Tushar Kanti Chattopadhyay.
J Gastrointest Surg . 2011 May;15(5):843-52.

  • Overall DGE = 30.9%:
    antecolic = 34.4% vs. the retrocolic = 27.8% group (p = 0.6).
  • Multivariate analysis, only age was found to be significant (p = 0.02).
  • LoS was longer in DGE patients (p = 0.0001).
Does antecolic reconstruction for duodenojejunostomy improve delayed gastric emptying after pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

An-Ping Su, Shuang-Shuang Cao, Yi Zhang, Zhao-Da Zhang, Wei-Ming Hu, Bo-Le Tian
World J Gastroenterol . 2012 Nov 21;18(43):6315-23.

Five articles included: 2 RCTs and 3 non-RCTs. On meta-analysis:

  • Antecolic reconstruction decreased :
    • DGE (P < 0.00001),
    • Intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.00 001).
  • No significant difference in :
    • Operative time (P = 0.21),
    • Postoperative mortality,
    • Overall morbidity (P =0.22),
    • LoS (P = 0.14).
Prospective randomized clinical trial of a change in gastric emptying and nutritional status after a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: comparison between an antecolic and a vertical retrocolic duodenojejunostomy.

Naoya Imamura, Kazuo Chijiiwa, Jiro Ohuchida, Masahide Hiyoshi, Motoaki Nagano, Kazuhiro Otani & Kazuhiro Kondo.
HPB (Oxford) . 2014 Apr;16(4):384-94.

  • DGE was not significantly different between the procedures Antecolic = 12.1%; Vertical retrocolic = 20.7%, (P = 0.316).
  • At 1 month, gastric emptying was prolonged in the VR versus the A group but not significantly.
  • At 6 months, gastric emptying was accelerated significantly in the Antecolic versus the Vertical retrocolic.
  • At 12 months, weight recovery was significantly better in the Vertical retrocolic (P = 0.015).
Impact of the Reconstruction Method on Delayed Gastric Emptying After Pylorus-Preserving Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Prospective Randomized Study.

Dietmar Tamandl, Klaus Sahora, Johannes Prucker, Rainer Schmid, Jens-Juul Holst, Johannes Miholic, Peter Goetzinger, Michael Gnant
World J Surg . 2014 Feb;38(2):465-75.

64 patients were amenable for analysis: 36 in the antecolic group and 28 in the retrocolic group.

  • DGE on POD 10 AC = 17.6 versus RC = 23.1 % (p = 0.628).
  • No difference in :
    • LoS (p = 0.446),
    • Time to regular diet (p = 0.353),
    • Morbidity (p = 0.777).
    • Median length of NGT (p = 0.600). 
Effect of antecolic or retrocolic reconstruction of the gastro/duodenojejunostomy on delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis.

Yanming Zhou1, Jincan Lin, Lupeng Wu, Bin Li & Hua Li.
BMC Gastroenterol . 2015 Jun 16:15:68.

Five RCTs involving 534 randomized patients were eligible.

  • The comparison of DGE showed no significant difference (P = 0.24).
    Comparable outcomes for :
    • Clinical parameters related to DGE,
    • Other complications,
    • Hospital mortality,
    • LoS.
Effects of antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction for gastro/duodenojejunostomy on delayed gastric emptying after pancreatoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Masafumi Imamura, Yasutoshi Kimura, Tatsuya Ito, Takayuki Nobuoka, Toru Mizuguchi, Koichi Hirata.
J Surg Res . 2016 Jan;200(1):147-57.

14 studies : 6RCTs, 8 clinical observational studies.

  • Antecolic reconstruction had lower incidence of :
    • DGE (P < 0.0001),
    • Postoperative days to start solid foods (P < 0.00001),
    • LoS (P < 0.00001).
  • No difference in the incidence of :
    • Pancreatic fistula,
    • Intra-abdominal fluid collection or abscess,
    • Biliary fistula,
    • Mortality.
  • In the subgroup analyses of 6 RCTs or seven studies according to the ISGPS definition:
    • No significant difference in the incidence of DGE.
Antecolic reconstruction is associated with a lower incidence of delayed gastric emptying compared to retrocolic technique after Whipple or pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Jianguo Qiu, Ming Li, Chengyou Du.
Medicine (Baltimore) . 2019 Aug;98(34):e16663.

15 studies (2270 patients).

  • The overall incidence of DGE was 27.2%,

Meta-analysis showed :

  • Antecolic group :
    • Lower DGE (P < .0001),
    • Shorter LoS (P = .0007).
    • Shorter days to liquid (P = .0006) and solid diet (P < .0001).
  • There was no difference in :
    • Operative time,
    • Pancreatic fistula,
    • Bile leakage,
    • Mortality.
Antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Hüttner FJ, Klotz R, Ulrich A, Büchler MW, Probst P, Diener MK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2022 Jan 11;1(1):CD011862.

  • There was low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that antecolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy results in little to no difference in morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, or quality of life.
  • Due to heterogeneity in definitions of the endpoints between trials, and differences in postoperative management, future research should be based on clearly defined endpoints and standardised perioperative management, to potentially elucidate differences between these two procedures.
  • Novel strategies should be evaluated for prophylaxis and treatment of common complications, such as delayed gastric emptying.
THM

📨🏠📝

  • No relevant difference, PPPD is equal to classic PD in term of operative morbidity & mortality. 
  • Oncologic outcome seems equal.
  • Improved DGE is not relevant between both technique.
  • Some data suggest superiority of PPPD in term of DGE and LoS.
Long-term survival in pancreatic cancer: pylorus-preserving versus Whipple pancreatoduodenectomy.

Franco Mosca, Pier C Giulianotti, Tommaso Balestracci, Giulio Di Candio, Andrea Pietrabissa, Fabio Sbrana, Giuseppe Rossi
Surgery 1997;122:553-66.

  • Mortality rate PD = 8.2% & PPPD 7.0%.
  • Morbidity rates PD = 34.4% & PPPD = 45.8%.
  • Five-year survival :
    • Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma = 9.6% No significant differences in survival rates between the two treatments
    • Periampullary carcinoma = 63.8%.
Prospective randomized comparison between pylorus-preserving and standard pancreaticoduodenectomy.

P.-W. Lin and Y.-J. Lin
Br J Surg . 1999 May;86(5):603-7.

  • No statistical differences in terme of :
    • Operative Whipple = 0 & PPPD = 1 patients
      Median operation Whipple = 235 min & PPPD = 230 min
    • Median blood loss Whipple = 500 ml & PPPD = 350 ml
    • Median blood transfusion Whipple = 0 units & PPPD = 0 units
    • Minor leaks Whipple = 3 patients & PPPD = 0
    • DGE Whipple = 1 patients & PPPD = 6 patients.
Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy versus standard Whipple procedure: a prospective, randomized, multicenter analysis of 170 patients with pancreatic and periampullary tumors.

Khe T. C. Tran, Hans G. Smeenk, Casper H. J. van Eijck, Geert Kazemier, MD, Wim C Hop. Jan Willem G. Greve, Onno T. Terpstra, Jan A. Zijlstra, Piet Klinkert, & Hans Jeekel.
Ann Surg . 2004 Nov;240(5):738-45.

  • There were no significant differences noted in age, sex distribution, tumor localization, and staging.
  • No differences in median blood loss, operative time & DGE.
  • Marginal difference in postoperative weight loss in favor of the SW.
  • Operative mortality = 5.3%.
  • Tumor positive resection margins SW = 12 patients & PPPD = 19 patients (P  0.23).
  • Long-term follow-up : no significant statistical differences in survival between (P  0.90).
Improvement of delayed gastric emptying in pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Masaji Tani, Hiroshi Terasawa, Manabu Kawai, Shinomi Ina, Seiko Hirono, Kazuhisa Uchiyama, & Hiroki Yamaue.
Ann Surg . 2006 Mar;243(3):316-20.

  • DGE occurred in AC = 5% RC = 50% (P  0.0014).
  • Post-operative NGT duration AC = 4.2 days RC = 18.9 days (P  0.047).
  • Solide food intake by day 14 AC = all patients & RC = 55% (P  0.0007).
  • LoS AC = 28 days & RC = 48 days (P  0.018).
Effect of enteral nutrition and synbiotics on bacterial infection rates after pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy: a randomized, double-blind trial.

Nada Rayes, Daniel Seehofer, Tom Theruvath, Martina Mogl,
Jan M. Langrehr, Natascha C. Nüssler, Stig Bengmark, & Peter Neuhaus.
Ann Surg . 2007 Jul;246(1):36-41.

  • Postoperative bacterial infections was significantly lower with Lactobacillus & fibers (12.5%) vs fibers only (40%).
  • Duration of antibiotic therapy was significantly shorter in the latter group.
  • Fibers & Lactobacillus were well tolerated.
  • Early enteral nutrition supplemented with a mixture of lactobacillus and fibers reduces bacterial infection rates and antibiotic therapy following PPPD
A systematic review and meta-analysis of pylorus-preserving versus classical pancreaticoduodenectomy for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma.

Markus K. Diener, Hanns-Peter Knaebel, Christina Heukaufer, Gerd Antes, Markus W. Büchler, & Christoph M. Seiler.
Ann Surg . 2007 Feb;245(2):187-200.

  • 1235 abstracts & 6 RCTs included.
  • Vast heterogeneity with respect to methodologic quality & outcome parameters.
  • No significant difference :
    • Overall in-hospital mortality (P  0.18),
    • Morbidity (P  0.69),
    • Survival (P  0.11).
  • Significantly reduced in the PPW :
    • Operating time (P  0.0004),
    • Intraoperative blood loss (P  0.00001)
Standard whipple’s operation versus pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: a randomized controlled trial study.

Chatchai SrinarmwonPrakob LuechakiettisakWasan Prasitvilai.
J Med Assoc Thai . 2008 May;91(5):693-8.

  • There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups of patients.
  • No significant differences in :
    • Blood loss and operative time.
    • Operative complications,
    • Hospital mortality,
    • LoS,
    • Two-years survival.
  • DGE occurred more frequently in the PPPD group, 
Pylorus ring resection reduces delayed gastric emptying in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial of pylorus-resecting versus pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy.

Kawai, Manabu MD; Tani, Masaji MD; Hirono, Seiko MD; Miyazawa, Motoki MD; Shimizu, Atsushi MD; Uchiyama, Kazuhisa MD; Yamaue, Hiroki MD.
Ann Surg . 2011 Mar;253(3):495-501.

  • DGE (according to the ISGPS classification) :
    • PrPD = 4.5% (grades A = 1, B = 1, & C = 1).
    • PpPD = 17.2% (A = 6, B = 5, C = 0) (significant difference).
  • Postoperative time to peak CO2 content in the C-acetate breath test was significantly delayed in PpPD up to 6 month.
  • Comparable outcomes for qQoL, weight loss, & nutritional status up to 6-month.
Pancreaticoduodenectomy versus pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: the clinical impact of a new surgical procedure; pylorus-resecting pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Manabu Kawai, Hiroki Yamaue
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci . 2011 Nov;18(6):755-61.

Review article

Pylorus-Resecting Pancreaticoduodenectomy Offers Long-Term Outcomes Similar to Those of Pylorus-Preserving Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Results of a Prospective Study.

Manabu Kawai, Masaji Tani, Seiko Hirono, Ken-ichi Okada, Motoki Miyazawa, Hiroki Yamaue.
World J Surg . 2014 Jun;38(6):1476-83.

At 24 months after surgery :

  • Weight loss > grade 2 PrPD vs PpPD :
    • significantly better in PrPD = 16.2% than PpPD = 42.2% (p = 0.011).
    • Nutritional status and late postoperative complications were similar for the two groups.
  • DGE  vs non-DGE patients:
    • in DGE patients = 63.6% versus non-DGE = 25.3% (p = 0.010).
    • Tmax (time to peak 13CO2 content in 13C-acetate breath test) was significantly delayed in DGE patients (p = 0.023).
    • Serum albumin level was higher in non-DGE (p = 0.013).
Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma.

Felix J Hüttner, Christina Fitzmaurice, Guido Schwarzer, Christoph M Seiler, Gerd Antes, Markus W Büchler, Markus K Diener, and Cochrane Upper GI and Pancreatic Diseases Group
Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2016 Feb 16;2(2):CD006053.

  • Current evidence suggests no relevant differences in mortality, morbidity, and survival between the two operations.
  • Some perioperative outcome measures significantly favour the PPW procedure.
  • Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future high-quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions based on well-defined outcome parameters are required.
A prospective randomized comparison between pylorus- and subtotal stomach-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy on postoperative delayed gastric emptying occurrence and long-term nutritional status.

Ippei Matsumoto, Makoto Shinzeki, Sadaki Asari, Tadahiro Goto, Sachiyo Shirakawa, Tetsuo Ajiki, Takumi Fukumoto, Yasuyuki Suzuki, Yonson Ku.
J Surg Oncol . 2014 Jun;109(7):690-6.

  • DGE (ISGPS definition)
    • PPPD = 20% versus SSPPD = 12% (P = 0.414).
  • During the 3-year follow-up period, no significant differences on :
    • Postoperative serum albumin levels,
    • Serum total cholesterol levels,
    • Body mass index.
Pylorus Resection Does Not Reduce Delayed Gastric Emptying After Partial Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial (PROPP Study, DRKS00004191).

Hackert, Thilo; Probst, Pascal; Knebel, Phillip; Doerr-Harim, Colette; Bruckner, Thomas; Klaiber, Ulla; Werner, Jens; Schneider, Lutz; Michalski, Christoph W.; Strobel, Oliver; Ulrich, Alexis; Diener, Markus K.; Büchler, Markus W.

Ann Surg . 2018 Jun;267(6):1021-1027.

  • Randomization PP = 95 and 93 patients to PR.
  • No baseline imbalances.
  • Overall DGE was 28.2% (grade: A 15.5%; B 8.8%; C 3.3%) :
    • PP = 25.3% versus in the PR = 31.2% (P = 0.208).
  • Higher BMI, indigestion, & intraabdominal major complications were significant risk factors for DGE.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of delayed gastric emptying and morbidity after pylorus-preserving versus pylorus-resecting pancreaticoduodenectomy.

U. Klaiber, P. Probst, O. Strobel, C. W. Michalski, C. Dörr-Harim, M. K. Diener, M. W. Büchler, T. Hackert.
BJS 2018; 105: 339–349

3 RCTs & 8 non-randomized studies with a total of 992 patients were included.

  • PPPD was superior regarding :
    • DGE (P = 0⋅001)
    • LoS (P = 0⋅004).
  • Subgroup analyses including only RCTs showed no significant statistical differences between the two procedures regarding :
    • DGE,
    • All other effectiveness & safety measures.

Minimally Invasive Surgery

Comming Soon

Comming Soon

Abstract Book

Abstracts will be displayed on Nov 14, 2024

This page is designed only for learning support purposes.
It is not dedicated for any medical use or patient care.
HBPSurG makes no claims of the accuracy of the information contained herein.​

error: Content is protected !!
HBPSurG

GRATUIT
VOIR