Preoperative endoscopic pancreatic stenting: a novel prophylactic measure against pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy

Endoscopic Transpapillary Pancreatic Duct Stent Placement for Symptomatic Peripancreatic Fluid Collection Caused by Clinically Relevant Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula After Distal Pancreatectomy

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic transpapillary pancreatic duct stent placement (ETPS) for symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collection caused by postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP). ETPS was also compared with percutaneous drainage (PTD). Retrospectively 38 patients were studied who developed clinically relevant POPF. Of 38 patients, 4 underwent PTD and 11 underwent ETPS. Technical and clinical success rates of ETPS (100% and 91%, respectively) were comparable with PTD (100% and 75%, respectively). The tip of a pancreatic stent was placed over the pancreatic stump in 4 patients and draining of pus through the pancreatic stent was observed. The hospital stay after DP and the interval from intervention to discharge were significantly shorter in the ETPS group than in the PTD group. ETPS is safe and successful for managing peripancreatic fluid collection caused by POPF after DP and should be considered as a therapeutic option.

Reproducibility of preoperative endoscopic injection of botulinum toxin into the sphincter of Oddi to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula

Background

A postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most common and potentially life-threatening surgical complication in pancreatic surgery. One possible pharmacological treatment could be the endoscopic injection of botulinum toxin (BTX) into the sphincter of Oddi to prevent POPF. Promising data reported a significantly reduced rate of clinically relevant POPF. We analyzed the effect of BTX injection in our patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing DP was performed. Patients with preoperative endoscopic injection of BTX into the sphincter of Oddi were included. The end points were postoperative outcomes including POPF. BTX patients were compared with a historical cohort and matched in a 1:1 ratio using a propensity score analysis.

Results

A total of 19 patients were treated with endoscopic injection of BTX before open (n=8) or laparoscopic (n=11) DP. The median age of the patients was 67 years and the mean body mass index was 25.9 kg/m². In median, the intervention was performed 1 day (range, 0–14 days) before the operation. There were no intervention-related complications. The incidence of POPF was not statistically different between the two groups: a clinically relevant POPF grade (B/C) occurred in 32% (BTX) and 42% (control; p=0.737). Likewise, there were no significant differences in postoperative drain fluid amylase levels, morbidity, and mortality.

Conclusion

The present study could not reproduce the published results of a significant lowering of grade B/C POPF. The explanations could be the timing of BTX injection before surgery and the endoscopic technique of BTX injection. However, the conflicting results after BTX injection in two high-volume centers prompt a randomized controlled multicenter trial with trained endoscopists.

Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy: Review of the English Literature

BACKGROUND

Recently, the superiority of the minimally invasive approach, which results in a better cosmetic result, faster recovery, and shorter length of hospital stay, is a technique that has been progressively recognized as it has developed. And the minimally invasive approach has been applied to distal pancreatectomy (DP), which is a standard method for the treatment of benign, borderline, and part of malignant lesions of the pancreatic body and tail. This article aims to analyze the types, postoperative recovery, and outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of the scientific literature was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, online journals, and the Internet for all publications on LDP. Articles were selected if the abstract contained patients who underwent LDP for pancreatic diseases. All selected articles were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

If there were no contraindications for LDP, this operation is suitable for benign, borderline, or malignant tumors of the pancreatic body and tail, which should try to be performed with preservation of the spleen. LDP is safe and feasible under some conditions to experienced surgeon. Single-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (S-LDP) and robotic laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (R-LDP) perioperative outcomes are similar with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (C-LDP). And the advantages of S-LDP and R-LDP require further exploration. With the application of enhanced recovery program (ERP), length of hospital stay and costs are reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP is safe and feasible under some conditions. Compared with open distal pancreatectomy, LDP has a lot of advantages; a trend was observed for LDP to replace traditional open surgery. LDP combined with ERP is expected to become standard in the treatment of pancreatic body and tail lesions.

Technical Aspects of Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign and Malignant Disease: Review of the Literature

Distal pancreatectomy is the standard curative treatment for symptomatic benign, premalignant, and malignant disease of the pancreatic body and tail. The most obvious benefits of a laparoscopic approach to distal pancreatectomy include earlier recovery and shorter hospital stay. Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy should be attempted in case of benign disease. Spleen preservation can be achieved preferably by preserving the splenic vessels (Kimura technique), but also by resecting the splenic vessels and maintaining vascularity through the short gastric vessels and left gastroepiploic artery (Warshaw technique). Several studies have suggested a higher rate of spleen preservation with laparoscopy. The radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy has become mainstay for treating pancreatic cancer and can be performed laparoscopically as well. Evidence on the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for cancer is scarce. Despite the obvious advantages of laparoscopic surgery, postoperative morbidity remains relatively high, mainly because of the high incidence of pancreatic fistula. For decades, surgeons have tried to prevent these fistulas but to date no strategy has been confirmed to be effective in 2 consecutive randomized studies. Pragmatic multicenter studies focusing on technical aspects of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are lacking and should be encouraged.

Risk factor analysis and prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy with stapler use

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major, intractable complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP). Risk factor evaluation and prevention of this complication are important tasks for pancreatic surgeons.

METHODS

One hundred and six patients who underwent DP using a stapler for pancreatic division were retrospectively investigated. The relationship between clinicopathological factors and the incidence of POPF was statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Clinically relevant, Grade B or C POPF by International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula criteria occurred in 52 patients (49.1 %). Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, and concomitant gastrointestinal tract resection did not influence the incidence of POPF. Use of a double-row stapler and a thick pancreatic stump were significant risk factors for POPF in multivariate analysis. Compression index was also shown to be an important factor in cases in which the pancreas was divided by a stapler.

CONCLUSIONS

The most important risk factor for POPF after DP was suggested to be the thickness of the pancreatic stump, reflecting the volume of remnant pancreas. A triple-row stapler seemed to be superior to a double-row stapler in preventing POPF. However, triple-row stapler use in a thick pancreas is considered to be a future problem to be solved.

Incidence of pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy and efficacy of endoscopic therapy for its management: results from a tertiary care center

Pancreatic fistula is a known complication of distal pancreatectomy. Endotherapy with pancreatic duct stent placement and pancreatic sphincterotomy has been shown to be effective in its management; however, experience of endotherapy in the management of this complication has not been extensively reported from the United States. Preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with pancreatic stent placement has also been proposed to prevent this complication after distal pancreatectomy. In our cohort of 59 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy, 13 (22%) developed a pancreatic fistula in the immediate postoperative period, of whom 8 (14%) patients (5 female, mean age 52 years) were referred for an ERCP because of ongoing symptoms related to the pancreatic fistula. The pancreatic fistula resolved in all patients after a median duration of 62 days from the index ERCP. The median number of ERCPs required to document resolution of the pancreatic fistula was 2. Although a sizeable percentage of patients develop a pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy, only a small percentage of patients require ERCP for management of this complication. Given the high success rate of endotherapy in resolving pancreatic fistula and the fact that the majority of patients who undergo distal pancreatectomy never require an ERCP, performing ERCP for prophylactic pancreatic duct stent prior to distal pancreatectomy might not be necessary.

Pancreatoenteral anastomosis or direct closure of the pancreatic remnant after a distal pancreatectomy: a single-centre experience

BACKGROUND

A major complication of a distal pancreatectomy (DP) is the formation of a post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF). In spite of the utilization of numerous surgical techniques no consensus on an appropriate technique for closure of the pancreatic remnant after DP has been established yet. The aim of this study was to analyse the impact of pancreatoenteral anastomosis (PE) vs. direct closure (DC) of the pancreatic remnant on POPF.

METHODS

A total of 198 consecutive patients who underwent a distal pancreatectomy between 2002 and 2010 at our institution were retrospectively analysed for post-operative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-one patients (76.3%) received DC whereas PE was performed in 47 patients (23.7%). The incidence of POPF was higher in the DC group (22% vs. 11%), whereas the rate of post-operative haemorrhage was higher in the PE group (11% vs. 7%). However, these differences were not significant. Additionally, there were no significant differences in overall post-operative morbidity and mortality between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of PE instead of DC may be considered as a safe alternative in individual patients, but it does not significantly lead to a general improvement in post-operative outcome after DP. An interdisciplinary collaboration in the prevention and treatment of POPF therefore remains essential.

Stapler and nonstapler closure of the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy: multicenter retrospective analysis of 388 patients

BACKGROUND

The pancreatic fistula rate following distal pancreatectomy ranges widely, from 13.3 to 64.0 %. The optimal closure method of the pancreatic remnant remains controversial, especially regarding whether to use a stapler.

METHODS

All patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy in five Japanese hospitals from January 2001 to June 2009 were included in this study. All relevant, anonymized medical records were entered into an electronic case report form. Complications and pancreatic fistulas were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery grading system, respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 388 patients, stapler closure and nonstapler closure were used after distal pancreatectomy in 224 patients (57.7 %) and 164 patients (42.3 %), respectively. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas (grades B and C) occurred in 47 patients (21.0 %) treated by stapler closure, which was a significantly lower rate than that for the 83 patients (50.6 %) treated by nonstapler closure. There were no surgical mortalities or in-hospital deaths. The distribution of postoperative complications was grade 1, 30.7 % (n = 119); grade 2, 40.2 % (n = 156); grade 3a, 0.1 % (n = 5); grade 3b, 0.3 % (n = 1); grade 4a, 0.3 % (n = 1). In the multivariate analysis, diabetes mellitus, previous laparotomy, operating time, and method of stump closure were found to be independently associated with the development of a clinical pancreatic fistula.

CONCLUSIONS

Stapler closure is a safe, efficient alternative to standard suture closure techniques because the clinical fistula rate is significantly lower.

Management of remnant pancreatic stump fto prevent the development of postoperative pancreatic fistulas after distal pancreatectomy: current evidence and our strategy

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is the most common surgical procedure for treating benign and malignant lesions in the body or tail of the pancreas. Although the mortality rate related to DP has recently been reduced, the postoperative morbidity remains high. The most frequent and dismal complication occurring after DP is the development of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF). Several resection methods and closure techniques for treating remnant pancreas have been developed in an effort to reduce the incidence of complications, especially POPF. However, the optimal procedure has not yet been established. In this review, we summarize the current clinical data and evidence for surgical techniques and perioperative management strategies for preventing POPF after DP. Finally, we introduce our non-closure technique for managing remnant pancreatic stumps.

The effect of prophylactic transpapillary pancreatic stent insertion on clinically significant leak rate following distal pancreatectomy: results of a prospective controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting reduces pancreatic fistula (PF) formation after distal pancreatectomy (DP).

BACKGROUND

PF causes major morbidity after DP. Transpapillary pancreatic stenting has been proposed to be beneficial in treating established PF and also, prophylactically, to reduce the risk for PF after DP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients scheduled for DP during October 2006 to December 2010 were assessed and, if eligible, randomized to DP without (DP) or with stenting before transection of the neck of the gland (DP + stent). DP procedure was standardized and the follow-up period included the first 30 postoperative days. The outcomes were assessed according to the intention to treat analysis principle.

RESULTS

: Sixty-four patients were assessed and 58 were randomized to either DP (n = 29) or DP + stent (n = 29). Mean ± SD operation time for DP was 218.8 ± 94.1 compared to 283.3 ± 131.9 for DP + stent (P = 0.052). Clinically significant PF (ISGPF [The International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula] classification Grade B or C) occurred in 6 DP (22.2%) and 11 (42.3%) DP + stent patients (odds ratio: 2.57, 95% confidence interval 0.78-8.48; P = 0.122). The mean hospital stay for patients without stent was 13.4 ± 6.4 days compared to 19.4 ± 14.4 days for those provided with a pancreatic stent (P = 0.071).

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this trial show that prophylactic pancreatic stenting does not reduce PF when performing a standardized resection of the body and tail of the pancreas. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT00500968.

Outcomes of endoscopic and percutaneous drainage of pancreatic fluid collections arising after pancreatic tail resection

BACKGROUND

Up to 15% to 30% of patients develop pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) after pancreatic tail resection. Percutaneous and endoscopic methods have been used to drain these collections, though few data are available that compare outcomes of these modalities.

STUDY DESIGN

From December 1998 to April 2011, we identified all patients who underwent pancreatic tail resection and developed PFCs requiring intervention. The primary aim was to compare overall success rates in resolution of PFCs using endoscopic and percutaneous modalities. Success rates, hospital length of stay, number of CT scans, sinograms and endoscopies performed, and days with drain(s) in place were compared.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were identified. Percutaneous drainage was performed a median of 25 days postoperatively, compared with 85 days for endoscopic drainage (p < 0.001). Endoscopic and percutaneous methods had similar rates of technical success (100% vs 97%, p = 0.50) and treatment success (80% vs 81%, p = 0.92), respectively. Recurrence rates were 16.6% for the endoscopic group and 23% for the percutaneous group (p = 0.65), and adverse events occurred in 9.4% of those treated endoscopically vs 13.3% of those treated percutaneously (p = 0.68). Location and characteristics of PFCs did not influence success rates. Recurrences were often treated by "salvage" drainage via the other modality. Median hospital stay was longer after primary percutaneous drainage compared with primary endoscopic drainage (5.5 days vs 2 days, p = 0.046). Primary percutaneous drainage patients also had more CT scans (median 3 vs 2, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage appear to be equally effective and complementary interventions for PFCs occurring after pancreatic tail resection. Primary endoscopic drainage may be associated with shorter hospital stay and fewer CT scans.

The influence of staple size on fistula formation following distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic fistula continues to be a source of significant morbidity following distal pancreatic resections. The technique of pancreatic division varies widely among surgeons, and there is no evidence that identifies a single method as superior. In our practice, the technique of distal pancreatic resection has evolved from cut-and-sew to stapled technique with green and recently white cartridge. The aim of our study was to evaluate the rate of clinically significant fistulas [International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) grade B or C] following distal pancreatectomy and to identify variables associated with a low rate of fistula development.

METHODS

Clinical records of all patients who underwent distal pancreatic resections between February 1999 and July 2010 by a single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed focusing on the incidence and type of pancreatic fistula as defined by ISGPF. Study variables included age, gender, surgical approach, extent of resection, ASA classification, type of stapler cartridge, use of Seamguard™, and ISGPF classification. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients (median age 60, range 21-85; 54% male) underwent distal pancreatic resection (laparoscopy 50% vs. open 50%). The most common indications were pancreatic adenocarcinoma (N = 15; 23%) and neuroendocrine neoplasms (N = 14; 22%). Clinically significant pancreatic fistula developed in 24% (N = 15). The rate of fistula with cut-and-sew technique was 36% (4/11), with stapled green cartridge 31% (9/29) and only 5% (1/21) with stapled vascular cartridge. Univariate logistic regression identified vascular cartridge size (p = 0.04, OR 0.11) and open stapled technique (p = 0.05, OR 0.12) as variables significantly associated with a low fistula rate. Both vascular cartridge size (p = 0.05, OR 0.10) and open stapled technique (p = 0.04, OR 0.08) remained significant when analyzed by multivariate logistic regression. Division of pancreatic parenchyma with vascular cartridges resulted in significantly (p = 0.03, OR 9.0) lower fistula rate compared to green cartridges. The use of Seamguard™ did not affect fistula rate (16% vs. 27%; p = 0.34) nor did the performance of multivisceral resection vs. distal pancreatectomy/splenectomy alone (21% vs. 23%, p = 1.0).

CONCLUSION

The optimal technique of pancreatic division has not been conclusively established. Dividing the pancreas utilizing vascular (2.5 mm) staple cartridges significantly decreased the rate of clinically significant pancreatic fistula and we have changed our practice accordingly. A prospective randomized trial is necessary to validate these results.

Remnant closure after distal pancreatectomy: current state and future perspectives

Remnant closure after distal pancreatectomy remains a surgical challenge and is still associated with a fistula rate of about 30%. Despite numerous technical modifications including the use of stapling devices, artificial patches and glue components, no important progress has been made concerning this topic within the last decade. Although tissue texture, co-morbidities and the type of resection may influence fistula rate, substantial improvement can probably be reached by further technical modifications. In addition to the avoidance of fistula development, the recognition and management of this complication is essential to achieve good postoperative outcome. The present review summarizes the currently available data on technical approaches, incidence and risk factors for failure of remnant closure, fistula-associated complications and management as well as the future perspectives in this field of surgery.

Endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy and stenting for preoperative prophylaxis of pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic fistula (PF) is the most common postoperative complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP). Endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy and drainage have been shown to be an effective treatment for PF. Recently, preoperative endoscopic pancreatic stenting was proposed to prevent PF, but there are no controlled trials so far.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether preoperative pancreatic sphincterotomy and stenting could prevent the development of PF in patients with DP.

DESIGN

Nonrandomized cohort study with a prospective endoscopic intervention group and a retrospective control group.

SETTING

Single-center academic teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Preoperative endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy and stenting were intended to prevent PF after DP in 25 patients between July 2004 and October 2008. The incidence of PF was compared with that in a control group of 23 patients who underwent DP between January 2001 and March 2004 without preoperative endoscopic intervention.

INTERVENTIONS

Pancreatic sphincterotomy and stenting.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

PF rate.

RESULTS

Overall, a cohort of 48 patients underwent DP between January 2001 and October 2008. In all 25 patients who underwent preoperative endoscopic pancreatic intervention, sphincterotomy was successfully performed, and stenting of the pancreatic duct was successful in 23 patients. PF developed in none of the 25 patients in the endoscopic intervention group. In the 23 patients without preoperative endoscopic intervention, a PF developed in 5 patients (22%) (P = .02).

LIMITATIONS

Nonrandomized design, retrospective control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative pancreatic sphincterotomy and stenting were a feasible and safe procedure in this series. Prophylactic preoperative endoscopic intervention may decrease PF rates after DP.

Feasibility and safety of emergency ERCP and small-caliber pancreatic stenting as a bridging procedure in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis but difficult sphincterotomy

BACKGROUND

The aims of the present study were: (1) to assess the feasibility and safety of emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and pancreatic duct (PD) stenting with small-caliber stents as a bridging procedure in acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP) patients in whom biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) proved difficult, failed or was contraindicated, and (2) to compare the clinical outcome of those patients having emergency ERCP with and without pancreatic stent.

METHOD

Eighty-seven consecutive patients with ABP were referred for emergency ERCP. In 60 of these ABP patients, ERCP, EST, and stone extraction (if necessary) were performed without PD stenting. In the remaining 27 patients, small-caliber (3-5 F, 4 cm) pancreatic stent insertion was initially applied. All patients were hospitalized for medical therapy and were followed up.

RESULTS

The mean ages, the initial symptom-to-ERCP times, the Glasgow severity scores, and the peak amylase and CRP levels at initial presentation were not significantly different in the ERCP + EST with PD stent group versus the ERCP + EST without PD stent group. More importantly, the complication rate was significantly lower in the ERCP + EST with PD stent group versus the ERCP + EST without PD stent group (7.4% vs. 25%); while the mortality rates (0% vs. 6.7%) were comparable, reasonably low, and demonstrated no statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Temporary PD stenting with small-caliber stents is a safe and effective procedure that may afford sufficient PD decompression to reverse the process of ABP and serve as a bridging procedure in severe ABP in patients with failed, complicated, or contraindicated biliary EST.

Roux-en-Y end-to-end and end-to-side double pancreaticojejunostomy: application of the reconstructive method of the Beger procedure to central pancreatectomy

PURPOSES

Central pancreatectomy is indicated for treatment of traumatic lesions and benign or low-grade tumors of the pancreatic neck and proximal body. After central pancreatectomy, the proximal pancreatic stump is usually closed, and pancreaticojejunostomy or pancreaticogastrostomy carried out with the distal pancreas. Adopting these reconstructive techniques in most series revealed a prevalence of postoperative fistula that was higher than after pancreaticoduodenectomy or left pancreatectomy. We present a case treated by novel application of the reconstructive method of the Beger procedure.

METHODS

Reconstruction by Roux-en-Y double pancreaticojejunostomy after central pancreatectomy was done in a 71-year-old female suffering from insulinoma of the proximal pancreatic body.

RESULTS

Postoperative complications were not observed. No alteration of pancreatic endocrine and exocrine function occurred at 22-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Double pancreaticojejunostomy is a promising method for treating the proximal pancreatic stump after central pancreatectomy.

Pancreatic Stent Placement is Associated with Resolution of Refractory Grade C Pancreatic Fistula after Left-Sided Pancreatectomy

Pancreatic fistula have been a source of significant morbidity and mortality after left-sided pancreatectomy. The majority of fistulas are classified as Grade A and resolve quickly with no intervention. Grade C pancreatic fistulas, which require percutaneous or operative drainage, are less common and may be associated with morbidity and mortality. We used postoperative endoscopic pancreatic stent placement as an adjunctive strategy in the management of refractory Grade C pancreatic fistulas. Patients undergoing endoscopic pancreatic stent placement for persistent, refractory peripancreatic fluid collections/pancreatic fistula after left-sided pancreatectomy were identified. Eight patients underwent endoscopic pancreatic stent placement for refractory Grade C pancreatic fistulas. Six patients had percutaneous catheter placement; two patients had trans-gastric drainage. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) showed extravasation of contrast from the distal end of the pancreatic duct in seven patients. Pancreatic stents were placed in all patients at a median time of 48 days postoperation and left for a median of 47 days. Before stent removal, ERCP demonstrated pancreatic fistula closure. Median time to complete resolution of the fistula was 41 days after stent placement. Endoscopic pancreatic stents were associated with resolution of Grade C fistulas. After distal pancreatectomy, pancreatic stent placement should be considered in the postoperative period for refractory pancreatic fistulas.