Pancreaticojejunostomy is the most common anastomosis following pancreaticoduodenectomy and middle pancreatectomy. The detailed surgical technics of pancreaticojejunostomy vary dramatically, but none of them can achieve zero fistula rate. In recent years,with the development of new surgical concept,application of new surgical technology, high-tech materials and instruments,the incidence of pancreatic fistula has decreased. At the same time,researches on investigating the risk factors of pancreaticojejunostomy are gradually deepening. Based on years of surgical experience on pancreaticojejunostomy and current literatures, this paper analyzes the factors affecting the effect of pancreaticojejunostomy, such as the patient's basic physical state,pancreatic texture and diameter of the pancreatic duct,pathology and course of the disease,surgical technology and perioperative management,and summarizes six technical principles for pancreaticojejunostomy to be shared with surgical comrades:appropriate tension,protection of blood supply,hermetic closure of pancreatic section,accurate connection of pancreatic duct and intestinal mucosa,individualization,learning and accumulation of experience.
Anastomosis, Surgical/adverse effects* ; Humans ; Pancreatic Fistula/prevention & control* ; Pancreaticoduodenectomy/adverse effects* ; Pancreaticojejunostomy/adverse effects* ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology* ; Treatment Outcome

OBJECTIVETo evaluate wound healing after pancreaticojejunostomy of three anastomotic methods.

METHODSFifty-four domestic piglets were divided into three groups according to the types of anastomoses: group of end-to-end pancreaticojejunal invagination (EE group), group of binding pancreaticojejunostomy (BP group) and group of inkwell pancreaticojejunostomy (IP group). Bursting pressure, breaking strength and histopathological findings of anastomosis were assessed on operative day and on the 5th and 10th day after operation.

RESULTSBursting pressure was (67+/-8) mm Hg, (96+/-11) mm Hg and (131+/-9) mm Hg in EE group on day 0, 5 and 10; and (140+/-8) mm Hg, (179+/-10) mm Hg and (269+/-13) mm Hg in BP group; and (102+/-10) mm Hg, (171+/-18) mm Hg and (254+/-24) mm Hg in IP group. Compare to EE group, bursting pressure of BP group and IP group were all increased with significant differences (P<0.05). Another significant difference was observed between BP group and IP group after anastomoses on operative day. Breaking strength was (4.6+/-0.6) N, (5.8+/-0.5) N and (7.1+/-0.6) N in EE group on 0 d, 5 d and 10 d; and (4.5+/-0.4) N, (6.6+/-0.4) N and (10.0+/-0.6) N in BP group; and (4.6+/-0.3) N, (6.5+/-0.4) N and (9.1+/-0.9) N in IP group. A similar value of anastomoses was shown in BP group and IP group on day 0, day 5 and day 10, but significant increase was demonstrated compared to EE group on day 5 and 10. Anastomotic site was well repaired by connective tissue and the cut surface of pancreatic stump was covered by mucosal epithelium in BP group and IP group on day 10, but the cut surface was incompletely repaired by granulation tissue and no regeneration of the epithelium was found in EE group.

CONCLUSIONSWound healing of binding pancreaticojejunostomy and inkwell pancreaticojejunostomy is more rapid and better than end-to-end pancreaticojejunal invagination, but breaking strength of inkwell pancreaticojejunostomy is weaker than binding pancreaticojejunostomy.

Anastomosis, Surgical ; methods ; Animals ; Female ; Male ; Pancreaticojejunostomy ; adverse effects ; methods ; Surgical Stomas ; pathology ; Swine ; Wound Healing

BACKGROUNDPancreaticogastrostomy (PG) has been proposed as an alternative to pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ), assuming that postoperative complications are less frequent. The aim of this research was to compare the safety of PG with PJ reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODSArticles of prospective controlled trials published until the end of December 2010 comparing PJ and PG after PD were searched by means of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases, and Chinese Biomedical Database. After quality assessment of all included prospective controlled trials, meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.0 for statistic analysis.

RESULTSOverall, six articles of prospective controlled trials were included. Of the 866 patients analyzed, 440 received PG and 426 were treated by PJ. Meta-analysis of six prospective controlled trials (including RCT and non-randomized prospective trial) revealed significant difference between PJ and PG regarding postoperative complication rates (OR, 0.53; 95%CI, 0.30 - 0.95; P = 0.03), pancreatic fistula (OR, 0.47; 95%CI, 0.22 - 0.97; P = 0.04), and intra-abdominal fluid collection (OR, 0.42; 95%CI, 0.25 - 0.72; P = 0.001). The difference in mortality was of no significance. Meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials (RCT) revealed significant difference between PJ and PG regarding intra-abdominal fluid collection (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26 - 0.79; P = 0.005). The differences in pancreatic fistula, postoperative complications, delayed gastric emptying, and mortality were of no significance.

CONCLUSIONSMeta-analysis of six prospective controlled trials (including randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized prospective trial) revealed significant difference between PJ and PG regarding overall postoperative complications, pancreatic fistula, and intra-abdominal fluid collection. Meta-analysis of four RCT revealed significant difference between PJ and PG with regard to intra-abdominal fluid collection. The results suggest that PG may be as safe as PJ.

Female ; Gastric Emptying ; Gastrostomy ; adverse effects ; mortality ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pancreaticoduodenectomy ; adverse effects ; mortality ; Pancreaticojejunostomy ; adverse effects ; mortality ; Prospective Studies ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

OBJECTIVETo evaluate the pancreatic fistula affected by different type of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODSElectronic databases PubMed, EMBase, COCHRANE Library, Wanfang, and VIP etc were used to search for randomized controlled trials or non randomized prospective controlled trials reported before September 2013 on clinical effects of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The statistical analysis was done by Review Manager 5.0.

RESULTSA total of 8 trials were included in this meta-analysis. The effects of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy (dmPJ) and invaginating pancreaticojejunostomy (iPJ) on postoperative complication in five studies were compared, and no statistical significance were found in postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (M-H:OR = 0.77, 95% CI:0.35-1.69, P = 0.52), reoperation (M-H:OR = 1.38, 95% CI:0.64-2.95, P = 0.41) and mortality (M-H:OR = 1.15, 95% CI:0.42-3.13, P = 0.79) between dmPJ and iPJ. The effects of binding pancreaticojejunostomy (bPJ) and conventional pancreaticojejunostomy (cPJ) (including duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy and invaginating pancreaticojejunostomy) on postoperative complication were compared, and no statistical significance were found in postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (M-H:OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.28-1.17, P = 0.13) , reoperation (M-H:OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.48-2.92, P = 0.72) and mortality (M-H:OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.27-1.99, P = 0.55) between bPJ and cPJ.

CONCLUSIONThere are no significant differences between dmPJ and iPJ in pancreatic fistula reoperation and mortality, and there are also no significant differences between bPJ and cPJ.

Anastomosis, Surgical ; adverse effects ; Humans ; Pancreas ; surgery ; Pancreatectomy ; adverse effects ; Pancreatic Fistula ; etiology ; surgery ; Pancreaticoduodenectomy ; adverse effects ; Pancreaticojejunostomy ; Postoperative Complications ; surgery ; Postoperative Period ; Prospective Studies ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Reoperation