Background: s/Aims: Postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Pancreatogastrostomy (PG) and pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) are the two most commonly used reconstruction techniques, yet evidence favoring one over the other is inconclusive. This study evaluates postoperative outcomes following open PD at a single institution that transitioned from PG to PJ as the preferred reconstruction method. Methods: This retrospective comparative study included patients who underwent PD between April 2005 and August 2022. Of 757 patients identified, 522 met the inclusion criteria. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to adjust for clinically relevant covariates. Primary endpoints were clinically relevant (CR) POPF (grade B/C) and Clavien–Dindo (CD) grade ≥ 3 POPFs. Secondary outcomes included post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), systemic complications, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Results: Overall, CR-POPF and CD grade ≥ 3 POPFs occurred in 21.3% and 8.0% of patients, respectively. Thirty-day and in-hospital mortality rates were 3.1% and 4.2%. After PSM, 368 patients (184 PG and 184 PJ) were analyzed. Grade B POPFs were more frequent following PJ than PG (24.5% vs. 15.8%, p < 0.001). Although CR-POPF and CD grade ≥ 3 POPFs were numerically higher in the PJ group, differences were not statistically significant. In contrast, DGE, PPH, and in-hospital mortality were significantly higher following PG (37.0% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.025; 16.3% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.025; and 7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.049, respectively). Conclusions PG was associated with a lower incidence of grade B POPFs but higher rates of DGE, PPH, and in-hospital mortality.

Anesthesia ; Conscious Sedation ; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Singapore

INTRODUCTION: In Singapore, non-anaesthesiologists generally administer sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The drugs used for sedation in hospital endoscopy centres now include propofol in addition to benzodiazepines and opiates. The requirements for peri-procedural monitoring and discharge protocols have also evolved. There is a need to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline on the safe and effective use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting. METHODS: The Academy of Medicine, Singapore appointed an expert workgroup comprising 18 gastroenterologists, general surgeons and anaesthesiologists to develop guidelines on the use of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The workgroup formulated clinical questions related to different aspects of endoscopic sedation, conducted a relevant literature search, adopted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and developed recommendations by consensus using a modified Delphi process. RESULTS: The workgroup made 16 recommendations encompassing 7 areas: (1) purpose of sedation, benefits and disadvantages of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (2) pre-procedural assessment, preparation and consent taking for sedation; (3) Efficacy and safety of drugs used in sedation; (4) the role of anaesthesiologist administered sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (5) performance of sedation; (6) post-sedation care and discharge after sedation; and (7) training in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy for non-anaesthesiologists. CONCLUSION These recommendations serve to guide clinical practice during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-anaesthesiologists in the hospital setting.
Conscious Sedation ; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; Singapore