A novel pancreaticogastrostomy method using only two transpancreatic sutures: early postoperative surgical results compared with conventional pancreaticojejunostomy.
10.4174/astr.2015.88.6.299
- Author:
Jeong Yeon LEE
1
;
Eun Young KIM
;
Jun Suh LEE
;
Soo Ho LEE
;
Gun Hyung NA
;
Tae Ho HONG
;
Young Kyoung YOU
;
Dong Goo KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. gshth@catholic.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Pancreaticoduodenectomy;
Pancreaticogastrostomy;
Pancreaticojejunostomy
- MeSH:
Demography;
Gastrostomy;
Humans;
Length of Stay;
Mucous Membrane;
Operative Time;
Pancreatic Fistula;
Pancreaticoduodenectomy;
Pancreaticojejunostomy*;
Pathology;
Retrospective Studies;
Sutures*
- From:Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
2015;88(6):299-305
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the surgical outcomes of pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) using two transpancreatic sutures with a buttress method through an anterior gastrostomy (PGt), and compare these results with our previous experience with pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) including the dunking and duct to mucosa methods after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). METHODS: In this study, 171 patients who had undergone PD between January 2005 and April 2013 were classified into three groups according to the method of the pancreaticoenteric anastomosis: dunking PJ (PJu group; n = 67, 39.1%), duct to mucosa PJ (PJm group; n = 41, 23.9%), and PGt (PGt group; n = 63, 36.8%). We retrospectively analyzed patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and surgical results. RESULTS: Both groups had comparable demographics and pathology, and there were no significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss, or postoperative hospital stay. Within the two groups, morbidities occurred in 49 cases (10.7%), and were not significantly different between the two groups, excepting postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The PGt group had a lower rate of POPF (18/63, 28.6%) than the PJu and PJm groups (21/67, 31.3% and 19/41, 46.3%; P = 0.048), especially in terms of grades B and C POPF (4/63 [6.3%] in the PGt group vs. 7/67 [10.4%] in the PJu group and 9/41 [22.0%] in the PJm group, P = 0.049). CONCLUSION: The PGt method showed feasible outcomes for POPF and had advantages over dunking PJ and duct to mucosa PJ with respect to immediate postoperative results. PGt may be a promising technique for pancreaticoenteric anastomosis after PD.
