Background: s/Aims: Double duct sign (DDS) (dilated common bile and pancreatic duct) is synonymous with pancreatic head/ peri-ampullary tumor (PHPAT). There is limited evidence on whether incidental DDS (I-DDS) is associated with an increased risk of malignancy. This study aimed to evaluate 5-year outcomes of I-DDS. Methods:  Patients were categorized according to their risk of malignancy. ‘Low-risk’ patients, including those with I-DDS between 2010 and 2015, were analyzed in this study. The primary outcome was incidence of PHPAT within five years of identification of DDS.Histology results from endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy were considered diagnostic. Secondary outcomes were incidence of benign causes, extent of follow-up investigations, and clinical indicators of malignancy in patients with DDS. Results:  Among 103 patients with DDS, 20 had I-DDS. Subsequent follow-up of these 20 patients found no patient with PHPAT, two (10%) patients with chronic pancreatitis, and 18 (90%) patients with no cause found. The median follow-up duration for ‘low-risk’ patients was 7.3 years (range, 6–11 years). The mean number of follow-up investigations per patient was two (range, 0–9). Investigations included computed tomography (n = 27), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (n = 23), endoscopy (n = 16), and ultrasound (n = 14). Patients with jaundice were more likely to have malignancy (p < 0.01). Those with abdominal pain were more likely to have a benign cause (p < 0.01). Hyperbilirubinemia and/or deranged liver enzymes and raised CA19-9 were more likely to be associated with PHPAT (p < 0.01). Conclusions  Patients with I-DDS have a low risk of developing PHPAT within five years.

Background: s/Aims: Double duct sign (DDS) (dilated common bile and pancreatic duct) is synonymous with pancreatic head/ peri-ampullary tumor (PHPAT). There is limited evidence on whether incidental DDS (I-DDS) is associated with an increased risk of malignancy. This study aimed to evaluate 5-year outcomes of I-DDS. Methods:  Patients were categorized according to their risk of malignancy. ‘Low-risk’ patients, including those with I-DDS between 2010 and 2015, were analyzed in this study. The primary outcome was incidence of PHPAT within five years of identification of DDS.Histology results from endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy were considered diagnostic. Secondary outcomes were incidence of benign causes, extent of follow-up investigations, and clinical indicators of malignancy in patients with DDS. Results:  Among 103 patients with DDS, 20 had I-DDS. Subsequent follow-up of these 20 patients found no patient with PHPAT, two (10%) patients with chronic pancreatitis, and 18 (90%) patients with no cause found. The median follow-up duration for ‘low-risk’ patients was 7.3 years (range, 6–11 years). The mean number of follow-up investigations per patient was two (range, 0–9). Investigations included computed tomography (n = 27), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (n = 23), endoscopy (n = 16), and ultrasound (n = 14). Patients with jaundice were more likely to have malignancy (p < 0.01). Those with abdominal pain were more likely to have a benign cause (p < 0.01). Hyperbilirubinemia and/or deranged liver enzymes and raised CA19-9 were more likely to be associated with PHPAT (p < 0.01). Conclusions  Patients with I-DDS have a low risk of developing PHPAT within five years.

Background: s/Aims: Double duct sign (DDS) (dilated common bile and pancreatic duct) is synonymous with pancreatic head/ peri-ampullary tumor (PHPAT). There is limited evidence on whether incidental DDS (I-DDS) is associated with an increased risk of malignancy. This study aimed to evaluate 5-year outcomes of I-DDS. Methods:  Patients were categorized according to their risk of malignancy. ‘Low-risk’ patients, including those with I-DDS between 2010 and 2015, were analyzed in this study. The primary outcome was incidence of PHPAT within five years of identification of DDS.Histology results from endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy were considered diagnostic. Secondary outcomes were incidence of benign causes, extent of follow-up investigations, and clinical indicators of malignancy in patients with DDS. Results:  Among 103 patients with DDS, 20 had I-DDS. Subsequent follow-up of these 20 patients found no patient with PHPAT, two (10%) patients with chronic pancreatitis, and 18 (90%) patients with no cause found. The median follow-up duration for ‘low-risk’ patients was 7.3 years (range, 6–11 years). The mean number of follow-up investigations per patient was two (range, 0–9). Investigations included computed tomography (n = 27), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (n = 23), endoscopy (n = 16), and ultrasound (n = 14). Patients with jaundice were more likely to have malignancy (p < 0.01). Those with abdominal pain were more likely to have a benign cause (p < 0.01). Hyperbilirubinemia and/or deranged liver enzymes and raised CA19-9 were more likely to be associated with PHPAT (p < 0.01). Conclusions  Patients with I-DDS have a low risk of developing PHPAT within five years.

Background: s/Aims: Double duct sign (DDS) (dilated common bile and pancreatic duct) is synonymous with pancreatic head/ peri-ampullary tumor (PHPAT). There is limited evidence on whether incidental DDS (I-DDS) is associated with an increased risk of malignancy. This study aimed to evaluate 5-year outcomes of I-DDS. Methods:  Patients were categorized according to their risk of malignancy. ‘Low-risk’ patients, including those with I-DDS between 2010 and 2015, were analyzed in this study. The primary outcome was incidence of PHPAT within five years of identification of DDS.Histology results from endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy were considered diagnostic. Secondary outcomes were incidence of benign causes, extent of follow-up investigations, and clinical indicators of malignancy in patients with DDS. Results:  Among 103 patients with DDS, 20 had I-DDS. Subsequent follow-up of these 20 patients found no patient with PHPAT, two (10%) patients with chronic pancreatitis, and 18 (90%) patients with no cause found. The median follow-up duration for ‘low-risk’ patients was 7.3 years (range, 6–11 years). The mean number of follow-up investigations per patient was two (range, 0–9). Investigations included computed tomography (n = 27), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (n = 23), endoscopy (n = 16), and ultrasound (n = 14). Patients with jaundice were more likely to have malignancy (p < 0.01). Those with abdominal pain were more likely to have a benign cause (p < 0.01). Hyperbilirubinemia and/or deranged liver enzymes and raised CA19-9 were more likely to be associated with PHPAT (p < 0.01). Conclusions  Patients with I-DDS have a low risk of developing PHPAT within five years.

Background: s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes. Methods: Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes. Results: In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN. Conclusions A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.

Background: s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes. Methods: Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes. Results: In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN. Conclusions A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.

Background: s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes. Methods: Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes. Results: In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN. Conclusions A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.

Background: s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes. Methods: Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes. Results: In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN. Conclusions A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.