Improvement of Surgery of Pancreatic Head Masses

The aim of the investigation was to improve the results of pancreatoduodenectomy by applying the algorithm of choice of pancreatodigestive anastomosis (PDA) and two original techniques for pancreatojejunal anastomosis.

Materials and Methods. When developing an algorithm to choose PDA we took into consideration the complication risk factors: pancreatic tissue consistency, pancreatic duct diameter, and the conformity of pancreatic and jejunal slice plane sizes. Based on the combination of these factors we distinguished five degrees of preparedness to anastomosis, and determined the optimal degrees for every PDA. Within the framework of the algorithm we used two pancreatojejunal anastomosis techniques: invaginated end-to-end with through U-shaped sutures and end-to-loop with pancreatic stump invagination into an enteric reservoir. Five PDA types were used in 48 patients of the main group, and end-to-end pancreatojejunal anastomosis were used in 52 cases in 58 subjects of the control group.

Results. Both groups were comparable by the main complication risk factors: pancreatic tissue consistency and a pancreatic duct diameter. The incidence of pancreatojejunal anastomosis dehiscence was 4 cases in the treatment group, and 10 cases in the control group. Neither acute pancreatitis nor lethal outcomes due to technical features of PDA formation were found in the treatment group. In the comparison group there were 6 cases of acute pancreatitis and 3 fatal cases. An original end-to-end PJA was used according to the algorithm in 10 patients, and end-to-loop — in 14 patients of the treatment group. The developed algorithm enables to choose an optimal way of anastomosis formation depending on morphometric characteristics of anastomosed pancreatic and jejunal stump.

Conclusion. A customized approach to PDA selection and the original techniques of anastomosis formation within the framework of the algorithm enable to reduce the number of severe complications and fatal cases after pancreatoduodenectomy.

1. Orr R.K. Outcomes in pancreatic cancer surgery. Surg Clin North Am 2010; 90(2): 219–234, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2009.12.007.
2. Walters D.M., McGarey P., LaPar D.J., Strong A., Good E., Adams R.B., Bauer T.W. A 6-day clinical pathway after a pancreaticoduodenectomy is feasible, safe and efficient. HPB 2013; 15(9): 668–673, https://doi.org/10.1111/hpb.12016.
3. Addeo P., Delpero J.R., Paye F., Oussoultzoglou E., Fuchshuber P.R., Sauvanet A., Sa Cunha A., Le Treut Y.P., Adham M., Mabrut J.Y., Chiche L., Bachellier P. Pancreatic fistula after a pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma and its association with morbidity: a multicentre study of the French Surgical Association. HPB 2014; 16(1): 46–55, https://doi.org/10.1111/hpb.12063.
4. Grobmyer S.R., Pieracci F.M., Allen P.J., Brennan M.F., Jaques D.P. Defining morbidity after pancreaticoduodenectomy: use of a prospective complication grading system. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 204(3): 356–364, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.11.017.
5. Fernández-del Castillo C., Morales-Oyarvide V., McGrath D., Wargo J.A., Ferrone C.R., Thayer S.P., Lillemoe K.D., Warshaw A.L. Evolution of the Whipple procedure at the Massachusetts General Hospital. Surgery 2012; 152(3 Suppl 1): S56–S63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2012.05.022.
6. Shchastnyy A.T. Postoperative complications of proximal pancreatectomy in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Novosti khirurgii 2011; 19(3): 30–43.
7. Callery M.P., Pratt W.B., Vollmer C.M. Jr. Prevention and management of pancreatic fistula. J Gastrointest Surg 2009; 13(1): 163–173, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-008-0534-7.
8. Hong T.H., Youn Y.C., You Y.K., Kim D.G. An easy and secure pancreaticogastrostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: transpancreatic suture with a buttress method through an anterior gastrotomy. J Korean Surg Soc 2011; 81(5): 332–338, https://doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2011.81.5.332.
9. Lai E.C., Lau S.H., Lau W.Y. Measures to prevent pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: a comprehensive review. Arch Surg 2009; 144(11): 1074–1080, https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2009.193.
10. Pecorelli N., Balzano G., Capretti G., Zerbi A., Di Carlo V., Braga M. Effect of surgeon volume on outcome following pancreaticoduodenectomy in a high-volume hospital. J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 16(3): 518–523, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-011-1777-2.
11. Patyutko Yu.I., Kotel’nikov A.G. Khirurgiya raka organov biliopankreatoduodenal’noy zony [Cancer surgery of the organs of biliopancreatoduodenal area]. Moscow: Meditsina; 2007; 448 p.
12. Zhang B., Xu J., Liu C., Long J., Liu L., Xu Y., Wu C., Luo G., Ni Q., Li M., Yu X. Application of “papillary-like main pancreatic duct invaginated” pancreaticojejunostomy for normal soft pancreas cases. Sci Rep 2013; 3: 2068, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02068.
13. Barvanyan G.M. Choice of the way of pancreaticodigestive fistula in pancreaticoduodenal resection. Vestnik khirurgii im. I.I. Grekova 2014; 173(6): 27–30.
14. Barvanian G.M. The method of pancreaticojejunostomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Khirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova 2014; 8: 28–31.
15. Strasberg S.M., Linehan D.C., Clavien P.A., Barkun J.S. Proposal for definition and severity grading of pancreatic anastomosis failure and pancreatic occlusion failure. Surgery 2007; 141(4): 420–426, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2006.12.001.
16. Inchauste S.M., Lanier B.J., Libutti S.K., Phan G.Q., Nilubol N., Steinberg S.M., Kebebew E., Hughes M.S. Rate of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. World J Surg 2012; 36(7): 1517–1526, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1598-9.
17. Katsaragakis S., Larentzakis A., Panousopoulos S.G., Toutouzas K.G., Theodorou D., Stergiopoulos S., Androulakis G. A new pancreaticojejunostomy technique: a battle against postoperative pancreatic fistula. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19(27): 4351–4355, https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i27.4351.
18. Machado N.O. Pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy: definitions, risk factors, preventive measures, and management — review. Int J Surg Oncol 2012; 2012: 60247, https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/602478.
19. Zaporozhchenko B.S., Kachanov V.N., Zubkov O.B., Borodaev I.E., Gorbunov A.A., Shevchenko V.G. Different variants of pancreatodigestive anastomoses during pancreatoduodenal resections. Vestnik neotlozhnoy i vosstanovitel’noy meditsiny 2012; 13(2): 270–272.
20. Kasatkin V.F. Improvement of immediate results of pancreatoduodenal resection for periampullary cancer. Khirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova 2008; 10: 10–16.
21. Suzuki Y., Fujino Y., Tanioka Y., Hiraoka K., Takada M., Ajiki T., Takeyama Y., Ku Y., Kuroda Y. Selection of pancreaticojejunostomy techniques according to pancreatic texture and duct size. Arch Surg 2002; 137(9): 1044–10478, https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.137.9.1044.
22. Chernyavskiy A.A., Lavrov N.A., Strazhnov A.V., Penin S.V. Pancreatic resections in operations about gastric cancer. Vestnik khirurgicheskoy gastroenterologii 2013; 3: 4–13.
23. Kriger A.G., Kubyshkin V.A., Karmazanovskii G.G., Svitina K.A., Kochatkov A.V., Berelavichus S.V., Kozlov I.A., Korolev S.V., Gorin D.S. The postoperative pancreatitis after the pancreatic surgery. Khirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova 2012; 4: 14–19.

Barvanyan G.М. Improvement of Surgery of Pancreatic Head Masses. Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine 2017; 9(2): 155, https://doi.org/10.17691/stm2017.9.2.20