Prospective randomized pilot trial comparing closed suction drainage and gravity drainage of the pancreatic duct in pancreaticojejunostomy. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC. 2009;16:837-843. [PMID: 19730769 DOI: 10.1007/s00534-009-0171-x]

Evidence-based approach for intraabdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Historically intraoperative drains were employed after pancreatic surgery but over the last decade, there has been debate over the routine usage of drains.

AIM

To assess the necessity of intra-abdominal drain placement, identify the most effective drain type, and determine the optimal timing for drain removal.

METHODS

A systematic review of electronic databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar, was conducted using Medical Subject Headings and keywords until December 2023. From an initial pool of 1910 articles, 48 were included after exclusion and screening. The primary outcomes analyzed were clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), overall morbidity, and mortality. Subgroup analyses were performed for pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

Routine use of drains is associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of CR-POPF and DGE. Conversely, patients who did not have drains placed experienced a significant reduction in morbidity, readmission rates, and reoperations. No significant differences were observed between active and passive drain types. Early drain removal (< 3 days) yielded favorable outcomes compared to delayed removal.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies did not demonstrate an advantage of routine drain placement following pancreatic resection, potentially contributing to increased morbidity and mortality. The decision to use drains should be left to the discretion of the operating surgeon. However, early drain removal can substantially reduce morbidity.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

RATIONALE

This is the fourth update of a Cochrane review first published in 2015 and last updated in 2021. The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery; to compare the effects of different types of surgical drains; and to evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases, and five trials registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors, to identify studies for inclusion in the review. The search dates were 20 April 2024 and 20 July 2024.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in participants undergoing pancreatic surgery comparing (1) drain use versus no drain use, (2) different types of drains, or (3) different schedules for drain removal. We excluded quasi-randomised and non-randomised studies.

OUTCOMES

Our critical outcomes were 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, intra-abdominal infection, wound infection, and drain-related complications.

RISK OF BIAS

We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in RCTs.

SYNTHESIS METHODS

We synthesised the results for each outcome using meta-analysis with the random-effects model where possible. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

INCLUDED STUDIES

We included 12 RCTs with a total of 2550 participants. The studies were conducted in North America, Europe, and Asia and were published between 2001 and 2024. All studies were at overall high risk of bias.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

We considered the certainty of the evidence for intra-abdominal infection for the comparison of early versus late drain removal following pancreaticoduodenectomy to be moderate, downgraded due to indirectness. We considered the certainty of the evidence for the other outcomes to be low or very low, mainly downgraded due to high risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision. Drain use versus no drain use following pancreaticoduodenectomy We included two RCTs with 532 participants randomised to the drainage group (N = 270) and the no drainage group (N = 262) after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drain use on 30-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 3.66; 2 studies, 532 participants), 90-day mortality (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.15; 1 study, 137 participants), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.51; 2 studies, 532 participants), and wound infection rate (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.31; 2 studies, 532 participants) compared with no drain use. Neither study reported on drain-related complications. Drain use versus no drain use following distal pancreatectomy We included two RCTs with 626 participants randomised to the drainage group (N = 318) and the no drainage group (N = 308) after distal pancreatectomy. There were no deaths at 30 days in either group. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drain use on 90-day mortality (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.35; 2 studies, 626 participants), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.42; 1 study, 344 participants), and wound infection rate (RR 2.12, 95% CI 0.93 to 4.87; 2 studies, 626 participants) compared with no drain use. Neither study reported on drain-related complications. Active versus passive drain following pancreaticoduodenectomy We included three RCTs with 441 participants randomised to the active drain group (N = 222) and the passive drain group (N = 219) after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on 30-day mortality (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.07; 2 studies, 321 participants), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.43; 3 studies, 441 participants), and wound infection rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.90; 2 studies, 321 participants) compared with a passive drain. None of the studies reported on 90-day mortality. There were no drain-related complications in either group (1 study, 161 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Early versus late drain removal following pancreaticoduodenectomy We included three RCTs with 557 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, randomised to the early drain removal group (N = 279) and the late drain removal group (N = 278) after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Low-certainty evidence suggests that early drain removal may result in little to no difference in 30-day mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.45; 3 studies, 557 participants) and wound infection rate (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.46; 3 studies, 557 participants) compared with late drain removal. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that early drain removal probably results in a slight reduction in intra-abdominal infection rate compared with late drain removal (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.79; 3 studies, 557 participants). Approximately 58 (34 to 102 participants) out of 1000 participants in the early removal group developed intra-abdominal infections compared with 129 out of 1000 participants in the late removal group. There were no deaths at 90 days in either study group (2 studies, 416 participants). None of the studies reported on drain-related complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drain use compared with no drain use on 90-day mortality, intra-abdominal infection rate, and wound infection rate in people undergoing either pancreaticoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy. The evidence is also very uncertain whether an active drain is superior, equivalent, or inferior to a passive drain following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that early drain removal is probably superior to late drain removal in terms of intra-abdominal infection rate following pancreaticoduodenectomy for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

FUNDING

None.

REGISTRATION

Registration: not available. Protocol and previous versions available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010583, doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub2, doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub3, doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub4, and doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub5.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is the third update of a previously published Cochrane Review to address the uncertain benifits of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

In this updated review, we re-searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) on 08 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included RCTs that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of nine RCTs with 1892 participants. Drain use versus no drain use We included four RCTs with 1110 participants, randomised to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. Low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may reduce 90-day mortality (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants). Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may result in little to no difference in 30-day mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants), wound infection rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants), length of hospital stay (MD -0.14 days, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.51; three studies, 876 participants), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants), and quality of life (105 points versus 104 points; measured with the pancreas-specific quality of life questionnaire (scale 0 to 144, higher values indicating a better quality of life); one study, 399 participants). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that drain use probably resulted in little to no difference in morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of drain use on intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; three studies, 660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Active versus passive drain We included two RCTs involving 383 participants, randomised to the active drain group (N = 194) and the passive drain group (N = 189) after pancreatic surgery. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on 30-day mortality (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.06; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.66; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.90; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.77; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.04; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.83; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no drain-related complication in either group. Early versus late drain removal We included three RCTs involving 399 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, randomised to the early drain removal group (N = 200) and the late drain removal group (N = 199) after pancreatic surgery. Compared to late drain removal, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of early drain removal on 30-day mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.45; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.85; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), hospital costs (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.14; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.10; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.79; one study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -2.20 days, 95% CI -3.52 to -0.87; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain. None of the studies reported on drain-related complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no drain use, it is unclear whether routine drain use has any effect on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that routine drain use may reduce mortality at 90 days. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications. Compared with late drain removal, early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate, morbidity, and length of hospital stay for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but the evidence is very uncertain.

External Negative Pressure Drainage of the Pancreatic Duct in Pancreatogastrostomy Following Pylorus-Preserving Pancreaticoduodenectomy-Feasibility and Technique

Background: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major cause of morbidity after pancreaticoduodenectomy. There is no consensus on the best technique to protect the pancreato-enteric anastomosis and reduce the rate of POPF. This study investigated the feasibility and efficiency of external suction drainage of the pancreatic duct to improve the healing of pancreaticogastrostomy. Methods: Between July 2019 and June 2021, 21 consecutive patients undergoing elective pancreaticoduodenectomy were included. In all patients we performed a pancreaticogastrostomy and inserted a negative pressure drainage into the pancreatic duct. The length and diameter of the pancreatic duct were measured and the texture of the pancreas was evaluated. The daily secretion volume and the lipase value via pancreatic duct drainage were documented. The occurrence of POPF was evaluated. Results: None of the patients had drainage-related complications. In 4 patients we registered a dislocation of the drainage from the pancreas duct into the stomach. 17/21 Patients showed no signs of POPF. A biochemical leak was measured in one patient. Furthermore, 2 patients had a POPF grade B. In one patient, POPF grade C required reoperation and resection of the remnant pancreas. All 4 cases of POPF met the risk criteria soft pancreas, high volume and high lipase value in the duct drainage. Conclusion: The insertion of the pancreatic duct drainage was feasible and caused no drainage-related morbidity. POPF-rate was moderate in the risk population of soft pancreas and small duct.

Passive Versus Active Intra-Abdominal Drainage Following Pancreatic Resection: Does A Superior Drainage System Exist? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major source of morbidity following pancreatic resection. Surgically placed drains under suction or gravity are routinely used to help mitigate the complications associated with POPF. Controversy exists as to whether one of these drain management strategies is superior. The objective was to identify and compare the incidence of POPF, adverse events, and resource utilization associated with passive gravity (PG) versus active suction (AS) drainage following pancreatic resection. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to May 18, 2020. Outcomes of interest included POPF, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), surgical site infection (SSI), other major morbidity, and resource utilization. Descriptive qualitative and pooled quantitative meta-analyses were performed. One randomized control trial and five cohort studies involving 10 663 patients were included. Meta-analysis found no difference in the odds of developing POPF between AS and PG (p = 0.78). There were no differences in other endpoints including PPH (p = 0.58), SSI (wound p = 0.21, organ space p = 0.05), major morbidity (p = 0.71), or resource utilization (p = 0.72). The risk of POPF or other adverse outcomes is not impacted by drain management following pancreatic resection. Based on current evidence, a suggestion cannot be made to support the use of one drain over another at this time. There is a trend toward increased intra-abdominal wound infections with AS drains (p = 0.05) that merits further investigation.

Should Drains Suck? A Propensity Score Analysis of Closed-Suction Versus Closed-Gravity Drainage After Pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains one of the most common complications after pancreatic surgery. We previously reported that the majority of US surgeons leave drains after pancreatectomy. However, there remains controversy and surgeon bias on the use of gravity compared with suction drainage with limited data on patient outcomes to guide management.

METHODS

Demographics, comorbidities, perioperative, and outcome data were captured from the most recent ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP)-targeted pancreatectomy databases. This is a retrospective cohort analysis comparing closed-suction to closed-gravity drains with multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Of 9232 patients that underwent a pancreatectomy with closed drain placement, 1345 (15%) were to gravity and 7887 (85%) were to suction. On multivariate and PSM, stratified by surgery-type, there was no difference in biochemical leak (Whipple, 4 vs. 4%; distal, 8 vs. 6%) or clinically relevant (CR)-POPF (Whipple, 13 vs. 15%; distal, 12 vs. 15%). On multivariate analysis, there was an increase in organ-space surgical site infections with suction drains for patients undergoing Whipple procedure (12 vs. 16%, p = 0.004), which did not persist on PSM (p = 0.088). Finally, there were no significant differences in amylase level, time to drain removal, or superficial surgical site infections for patients undergoing either procedure based on drain type.

CONCLUSION

The majority of drains utilized after pancreatectomy in the USA are placed to suction, though a significant proportion are kept to gravity. Neither type of drain is associated with increased CR-POPF or other post-operative outcomes compared with the other; therefore, both types remain reasonable options if drains are to be placed.

Evidence-based evaluation of abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery

Pancreatic fistula is the most common and dreaded complication after pancreatic resection, responsible for high morbidity and mortality (2 to 30%). Prophylactic drainage of the operative site is usually put in place to decrease and/or detect postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) early. However, this policy is currently debated and the data from the literature are unclear. The goal of this update is to analyze the most recent evidence-based data with regard to prophylactic abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection (pancreatoduodenectomy [PD] or distal pancreatectomy [PD]). This systematic review of the literature between 1990 and 2020 sought to answer the following questions: should drainage of the operative site after pancreatectomy be routine or adapted to the risk of POPF? If a drainage is used, how long should it remain in the abdomen, what criteria should be used to decide to remove it, and what type of drainage should be preferred? Has the introduction of laparoscopy changed our practice? The literature seems to indicate that it is not possible to recommend the omission of routine drainage after pancreatic resection. By contrast, an approach based on the risk of POPF using the fistula risk score seems beneficial. When a drain is placed, early removal (within 5 days) seems feasible based on clinical, laboratory (C-reactive protein, leukocyte count, neutrophile/lymphocyte ratio, dosage and dynamic of amylase in the drains on D1, D3±D5) and radiological findings. This is in line with the development of enhanced recovery programs after pancreatic surgery. Finally, this literature review did not find any specific data relative to mini-invasive pancreatic surgery.

Is constant negative pressure for external drainage of the main pancreatic duct useful in preventing pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy?

BACKGROUND

This study sought to investigate the utility of constant negative pressure for external drainage of the main pancreatic duct in preventing postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

Only patients with soft pancreas were included. In the former period (July 2013 to May 2015), gravity dependent drainage was applied (gravity dependent drainage group), and in the latter period (June 2015 to November 2016), constant negative pressure drainage (negative pressure drainage group) was applied to the main pancreatic duct stent.

RESULTS

There were 37 patients in the gravity dependent drainage group and 39 patients in the negative pressure drainage group. Clinically relevant POPF occurred in 21 patients (56.8%) in the gravity dependent drainage group and 13 patients (33.3%) in the negative pressure drainage group (p = 0.040). The incidence rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade > III) was significantly lower in the negative pressure drainage group (13.2%) compared to the gravity dependent drainage group (48.7%) (p = 0.001). In-hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the negative pressure drainage group compared to the gravity dependent drainage group (median 25 vs. 33 days, p = 0.024). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the gravity dependent drainage was one of the independent risk factors for the incidence of POPF (odds ratio, 3.33; p = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with soft pancreas, the incidence rate of clinically relevant POPF may be reduced by applying constant negative pressure to the pancreatic duct stent. It also has a potential to reduce overall incidence of major complications and shorten in-hospital stay after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Significance of drain fluid amylase check on day 3 after pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

The occurrence of pancreatic fistulae (PF) after pancreatectomy is the main cause of prolonged hospital stay, delayed chemotherapy, poor quality of life and post-operative death. The surgical drainage after pancreatectomy can induce ascending infection, early removal is recommended if the possibility of PF is low. The present study analysed the risk factors and predictors of PF, and confirmed the significance of drain fluid amylase concentration (DFA, U/L) among various factors identified. On the basis of these results, we tried to evaluate the practical clinical applicability of DFA and obtain appropriate baseline values.

METHODS

From January 2014 to December 2017, 117 patients underwent major pancreatectomy with pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy, Whipple procedure, subtotal pancreatectomy or distal pancreatectomy. This study retrospectively collected and analysed demographics, pathological results and prognoses of these patients.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis indicated that the DFA obtained on day 3 after surgery (DFA 3) was the only predictor of PF with statistical significance (P < 0.001). Of all the factors tested, area under the curve was highest for DFA 3 (0.89). In addition, of all the factors tested, DFA 3 with a cut-off value of 1004 U/L had the best sensitivity (92%) and specificity (82%).

CONCLUSIONS

DFA 3 of a cut-off value of 1004 U/L might be determined to be the best predictor of PF, and early removal of the surgical drain could be considered if DFA (1004 U/L) is lower than the cut-off value at 3 days after surgery.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

For the last version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 8), and MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) to 28 August 2016). For this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2016 to 15 November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled studies that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified six studies (1384 participants). Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Drain use versus no drain useWe included four studies with 1110 participants, who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. There was little or no difference in mortality at 30 days between groups (1.5% with drains versus 2.3% with no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Drain use probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days (0.8% versus 4.2%; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We were uncertain whether drain use reduced intra-abdominal infection (7.9% versus 8.2%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-quality evidence), or additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (10.9% versus 12.1%; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; three studies, 660 participants; very low-quality evidence). Drain use may lead to similar amount of wound infection (9.8% versus 9.9%; RR 0.98 , 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence), and additional open procedures for postoperative complications (9.4% versus 7.1%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with no drain use. There was little or no difference in morbidity (61.7% versus 59.7%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies, 711 participants; moderate-quality evidence) between groups. There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Health-related quality of life was measured with the pancreas-specific quality-of-life questionnaire (FACT-PA; a scale of 0 to 144 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Drain use may lead to similar quality of life scores, measured at 30 days after pancreatic surgery, when compared with no drain use (105 points versus 104 points; one study, 399 participants; low-quality evidence). Hospital costs and pain were not reported in any of the studies.Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants, who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. An active drain may lead to similar mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain; low-quality evidence), and morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15; low-quality evidence) when compared with a passive drain. We were uncertain whether an active drain decreased intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05; very low-quality evidence), or the number of additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29; very low-quality evidence). Active drain may reduce length of hospital stay slightly (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; one study; low-quality evidence; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay). Additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no mortality in either group. Early drain removal may slightly reduce morbidity (38.6% with early drain removal versus 61.4% with late drain removal; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93; low-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; low-quality evidence; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (MD -EUR 2069.00, 95% CI -3872.26 to -265.74; low-quality evidence; 17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs). We were uncertain whether early drain removal reduced additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% versus 1.8%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01; one study; very low-quality evidence). Intra-abdominal infection, wound infection, additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It was unclear whether routine abdominal drainage had any effect on the reduction of mortality at 30 days, or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that routine abdominal drainage probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days. Low-quality evidence suggested that use of an active drain compared to the use of a passive drain may slightly reduce the length of hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Multicenter, Prospective Trial of Selective Drain Management for Pancreatoduodenectomy Using Risk Stratification

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter study sought to prospectively evaluate a drain management protocol for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD).

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests value for both selective drain placement and early drain removal for PD. Both strategies have been associated with reduced rates of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF)-the most common and morbid complication after PD.

METHODS

The protocol was applied to 260 consecutive PDs performed at two institutions over 17 months. Risk for ISGPF CR-POPF was determined intraoperatively using the Fistula Risk Score (FRS); drains were omitted in negligible/low risk patients and drain fluid amylase (DFA) was measured on postoperative day 1 (POD 1) for moderate/high risk patients. Drains were removed early (POD 3) in patients with POD 1 DFA ≤5,000 U/L, whereas patients with POD 1 DFA >5,000 U/L were managed by clinical discretion. Outcomes were compared with a historical cohort (N = 557; 2011-2014).

RESULTS

Fistula risk did not differ between cohorts (median FRS: 4 vs 4; P = 0.933). No CR-POPFs developed in the 70 (26.9%) negligible/low risk patients. Overall CR-POPF rates were significantly lower after protocol implementation (11.2 vs 20.6%, P = 0.001). The protocol cohort also demonstrated lower rates of severe complication, any complication, reoperation, and percutaneous drainage (all P < 0.05). These patients also experienced reduced hospital stay (median: 8 days vs 9 days, P = 0.001). There were no differences between cohorts in the frequency of bile or chyle leaks.

CONCLUSIONS

Drains can be safely omitted for one-quarter of PDs. Drain amylase analysis identifies which moderate/high risk patients benefit from early drain removal. This data-driven, risk-stratified approach significantly decreases the occurrence of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

For the initial version of this review, we searched the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 April 2015), Embase (1980 to 9 April 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 9 April 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 9 April 2015). For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2015 to 28 August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled trials that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified five trials (of 985 participants) which met our inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we employed the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Drain use versus no drain useWe included three trials involving 711 participants who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 358) and the no drainage group (N = 353) after pancreatic surgery. There was inadequate evidence to establish the effect of drains on mortality at 30 days (2.2% with drains versus 3.4% no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; three studies; low-quality evidence), mortality at 90 days (2.9% versus 11.6%; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.10; one study; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal infection (7.3% versus 8.5%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.20; three studies; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (12.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; three studies; low-quality evidence), morbidity (64.8% versus 62.0%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.16; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (11.5% versus 9.1%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.52; three studies). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.6%). Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain), intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05), morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29). The active drain group was associated with shorter length of hospital stay (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay) than in the passive drain group. The quality of evidence was low, or very low. Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (0% for both groups) or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% with early drain removal versus 1.8% with late drain removal; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01). The early drain removal group was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications (38.5% versus 61.4%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs) than in the late drain removal group. The quality of evidence for each of the outcomes was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the reduction of mortality and postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. In case of drain insertion, low-quality evidence suggests that active drainage may reduce hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Stents for the prevention of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Several studies have demonstrated that the use of pancreatic duct stents following pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with a lower risk of pancreatic fistula. However, to date there is a lack of accord in the literature on whether the use of stents is beneficial and, if so, whether internal or external stenting, with or without replacement, is preferable. This is an update of a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of pancreatic stents in preventing pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and four major Chinese biomedical databases up to November 2015. We also searched several major trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of stents (either internal or external) versus no stents, and comparing internal stents versus external stents, replacement versus no replacement following pancreaticoduodenectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data. The outcomes studied were incidence of pancreatic fistula, need for reoperation, length of hospital stay, overall complications, and in-hospital mortality. We showed the results as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/).

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies (1018 participants). The average age of the participants ranged from 56 to 68 years. Most of the studies were conducted in single centers in Japan (four studies), China (two studies), France (one study), and the USA (one study). The risk of bias was low or unclear for most domains across the studies. Stents versus no stentsThe effect of stents on reducing pancreatic fistula in people undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy was uncertain due to the low quality of the evidence (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.14; 605 participants; 4 studies). The risk of in-hospital mortality was 3% in people who did receive stents compared with 2% (95% CI 1% to 6%) in people who had stents (RR 0.73, 0.28 to 1.94; 605 participants; 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The effect of stents on reoperation was uncertain due to wide confidence intervals (RR 0.67, 0.36 to 1.22; 512 participants; 3 studies; moderate-quality evidence). We found moderate-quality evidence that using stents reduces total hospital stay by just under four days (mean difference (MD) -3.68, 95% CI -6.52 to -0.84; 605 participants; 4 studies). The risk of delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, and intra-abdominal abscess was uncertain (gastric emptying: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.35; moderate-quality evidence) (wound infection: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.32; moderate-quality evidence) (abscess: RR 1.38, 0.49 to 3.85; low-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis by type of stent provided limited evidence that external stents lead to lower risk of fistula compared with internal stents. External versus internal stentsThe effect of external stents on the risk of pancreatic fistula, reoperation, delayed gastric emptying, and intra-abdominal abscess compared with internal stents was uncertain due to low-quality evidence (fistula: RR 1.44, 0.94 to 2.21; 362 participants; 3 studies) (reoperation: RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.79; 319 participants; 3 studies) (gastric emptying: RR 1.65, 0.66 to 4.09; 362 participants; 3 studies) (abscess: RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 4.58; 362 participants; 3 studies). The rate of in-hospital mortality was lower in studies comparing internal and external stents than in those comparing stents with no stents. One death occurred in the external-stent group (RR 0.33, 0.01 to 7.99; low-quality evidence). There were no cases of pancreatitis in participants who had internal stents compared with three in those who had external stents (RR 0.15, 0.01 to 2.73; low-quality evidence). The difference between internal and external stents on total hospital stay was uncertain due to the wide confidence intervals around the average effect of 1.7 days fewer with internal stents (9.18 days fewer to 5.84 days longer; 262 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). The analysis of wound infection could not exclude a protective effect with either approach (RR 1.41, 0.44 to 4.48; 319 participants; 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Operative replacement of pancreatic juice versus not replacing pancreatic juice There was insufficient evidence available from a small trial to ascertain the effect of replacing pancreatic juice.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review has identified limited evidence on the effects of stents. We have not been able to identify convincing direct evidence of superiority of external over internal stents. We found a limited number of RCTs with small sample sizes. Further RCTs on the use of stents after pancreaticoduodenectomy are warranted.

Application of single-layer mucosa-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunal anastomosis in pancreaticoduodenectomy

AIM: To investigate the simplicity, reliability, and safety of the application of single-layer mucosa-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunal anastomosis in pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on the data of patients who received pancreaticoduodenectomy completed by the same surgical group between January 2011 and April 2014 in the General Hospital of the People’s Liberation Army. In total, 51 cases received single-layer mucosa-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunal anastomosis and 51 cases received double-layer pancreaticojejunal anastomosis. The diagnoses of pancreatic fistula and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy were judged strictly by the International Study Group on pancreatic fistula definition. The preoperative and intraoperative data of these two groups were compared. χ² test and Fisher’s exact test were used to analyze the incidences of pancreatic fistula, peritoneal catheterization, abdominal infection and overall complications between the single-layer anastomosis group and double-layer anastomosis group. Rank sum test were used to analyze the difference in operation time, pancreaticojejunal anastomosis time, postoperative hospitalization time, total hospitalization time and hospitalization expenses between the single-layer anastomosis group and double-layer anastomosis group.

RESULTS: Patients with grade A pancreatic fistula accounted for 15.69% (8/51) vs 15.69% (8/51) (P = 1.0000), and patients with grades B and C pancreatic fistula accounted for 9.80% (5/51) vs 52.94% (27/51) (P = 0.0000) in the single-layer and double-layer anastomosis groups. Although there was no significant difference in the percentage of patients with grade A pancreatic fistula, there was a significant difference in the percentage of patients with grades B and C pancreatic fistula between the two groups. The operation time (220.059 ± 60.602 min vs 379.412 ± 90.761 min, P = 0.000), pancreaticojejunal anastomosis time (17.922 ± 5.145 min vs 31.333 ± 7.776 min, P = 0.000), postoperative hospitalization time (18.588 ± 5.285 d vs 26.373 ± 15.815 d, P = 0.003), total hospitalization time (25.627 ± 6.551 d vs 33.706 ± 15.899 d, P = 0.002), hospitalization expenses (116787.667 ± 31900.927 yuan vs 162788.608 ± 129732.500 yuan, P = 0.001), as well as the incidences of pancreatic fistula [13/51 (25.49%) vs 35/51 (68.63%), P = 0.0000], peritoneal catheterization [0/51 (0%) vs 6/51 (11.76%), P = 0.0354], abdominal infection [1/51 (1.96%) vs 11/51 (21.57%), P = 0.0021], and overall complications [21/51 (41.18%) vs 37/51 (72.55%), P = 0.0014] in the single-layer anastomosis group were all lower than those in the double-layer anastomosis group.

CONCLUSION: Single-layer mucosa-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunal anastomosis appears to be a simple, reliable, and safe method. Use of this method could reduce the postoperative incidence of complications.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 April 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 9 April 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 9 April 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 9 April 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled trials that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we employed the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Drain use versus no drain useWe included two trials involving 316 participants who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 156) and the no drainage group (N = 160) after pancreatic surgery. Both trials were at high risk of bias. There was inadequate evidence to establish the effect of drains on mortality at 30 days (drains 1.3%; no drains 3.8%; RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.05 to 3.94; two studies; very low-quality evidence), mortality at 90 days (2.9% versus 11.6%; RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.05 to 1.10; one study; very low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal infection (8.3% versus 14.4%; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.46; two studies), wound infection (10.9% versus 11.9%; RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.86; two studies), morbidity (67.3% versus 65.0%; RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; two studies), length of hospital stay (MD -0.97 days; 95% CI -1.41 to -0.53; two studies), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (6.3% versus 6.4%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.15 to 5.32; two studies). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.6%). The quality of evidence was low, or very low. Type of drainThere were no randomized controlled trials comparing one type of drain versus another. Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. The trial was at high risk of bias. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in the mortality at 30 days (0% for both groups) or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% versus 1.8%; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01). The early drain removal group was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications (38.5% versus 61.4%; RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days; 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay) and hospital costs (17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs) than in the late drain removal group. The quality of evidence for each of the outcomes was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not clear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the reduction of mortality and postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. In case of drain insertion, low-quality evidence suggests that early removal may be superior to late removal for patients with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Postoperative drain amylase predicts pancreatic fistula in pancreatic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study to evaluate the utility of drain fluid amylase as a predictor of PF in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery based on the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula definitions of pancreatic fistula.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was carried out using Pubmed (Medline), Embase, Web of science and Cochrane database for clinical trials, which studied DFA as a diagnostic marker for pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery. Sensitivity, specificity and the diagnostic odds ratios with 95% confidence interval were calculated for each study. Summary receiver-operating curves were conducted and the area under the curve was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of drain fluid amylase Day 1 for the diagnosis of postoperative pancreatic fistula were 81% and 87%, respectively (area under the curve was 0.897, diagnostic odds ratios was 16.83 and 95%CI was 12.66-22.36), the pooled sensitivity and specificity of drain fluid amylase Day 3 for the diagnosis of postoperative pancreatic fistula were 56% and 79%, respectively (area under the curve was 0.668, diagnostic odds ratios was 3.26 and 95%CI was 1.83-5.82) CONCLUSIONS: The drain fluid amylase Day 1, instead of drain fluid amylase Day 3, may be a useful criterion for the early identification of postoperative pancreatic fistula, and a value of drain fluid amylase Day 1 over than 1300 U/L was a risk factor of pancreatic fistula. And the diagnostic accuracy and the proposed cut-off levels of drain fluid amylase Day 1 in predicting the postoperative pancreatic fistula will have to be validated by multicenter prospective studies.

Use and results of consensus definitions in pancreatic surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Because of the lack of standardized definitions of complications in gastrointestinal operations, consensus definitions have been developed in recent years. The aim of the current study was to systematically review the available consensus definitions and to report their use, acceptance, and results.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted of the Medline, Cochrane, and ISI Web of Science databases. All articles published until August 2011 and that applied the identified consensus definitions were considered. Inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis were studies with correct usage of the definition and 100 or more patients who were treated after the year 2000.

RESULTS

Seven consensus definitions were identified: postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, posthepatectomy liver failure, bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery, posthepatectomy hemorrhage, and anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of the rectum. Of 1,637 articles retrieved from the literature search, 59 articles that correctly applied the definitions met the inclusion criteria. Subanalyses were feasible for definitions after pancreatic surgery. According to the consensus definitions, the median complication rates of retrospective studies were 21.9% (postoperative pancreatic fistula, n = 11,244 patients), 5.9% (postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, n = 3,311 patients), and 22.8% (delayed gastric emptying, n = 4,553 patients) after pancreatic resections. The incidences were not substantially different in prospective trials. Validation was performed for all three definitions, demonstrating that the severity grades significantly correlated with the clinical course of the patients.

CONCLUSION

The available consensus definitions were increasingly cited and facilitate scientific comparability and transparency if appropriately applied. The present data update the incidences of major pancreatic complications.

Stents for the prevention of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Several studies have demonstrated that the use of pancreatic duct stents following pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with a lower risk of pancreatic fistula. However, to date, there is a lack of accord in the literature on whether the use of stents is beneficial and, if so, whether internal or external stenting is preferable.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of pancreatic stents in preventing pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science and four major Chinese biomedical databases were searched up to February 2011. We also searched four major trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of stents (either internal or external) versus no stents, and comparing internal stents versus external stents following pancreaticoduodenectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted the data independently. The outcomes studied were incidence of pancreatic fistula, need for reoperation, length of hospital stay, overall complications, and in-hospital mortality. The results were shown as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 656 patients were included in the systematic review. Overall, the use of stents (both external and internal) was not associated with a statistically significant change in any of the studied outcomes. In a subgroup analysis, it was found that the use of external, but not internal, stents is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of pancreatic fistulae (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.98, P = 0.04), the incidence of complications (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.92, P = 0.03) and length of hospital stay (RR -0.57; 95% CI -0.94 to -0.21, P = 0.002). In RCTs on the use of internal versus external stents, no statistically significant difference was found in terms of any of the studied outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests that the use of external stents following pancreaticoduodenectomy may be beneficial. However, only a limited number of RCTs with rather small sample sizes were available. Further RCTs on the use of stents after pancreaticoduodenectomy are warranted.

Pancreaticojejunostomy without stent (with video)

There is a high risk of anastomotic leakage following pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy or middle pancreatectomy in patients with a normal soft pancreas because of the abundant exocrine function. Therefore, pancreaticojejunostomy is generally performed using a stent tube (stented method). However, pancreaticojejunostomy with a certain duct-to-mucosa anastomosis does not always require a stent tube even in patients with a normal soft pancreas. We have performed pancreaticojejunostomy with duct-to-mucosa anastomosis without a stent tube (nonstented method) and obtained good results. The objective of this technique is to maintain adequate patency of the anastomosis using a fine atraumatic needle and monofilament suture. The pancreas, including the pancreatic duct, is sharply transected with a scalpel. Any arterial bleeding points on the pancreatic cut end are repaired with fine nonabsorbable sutures. The end-to-side anastomosis between the pancreas and jejunum consists of two layers of sutures. The outer layer is composed of the capsular parenchyma of the pancreas and the jejunal seromuscularis, and the inner layer is composed of the pancreatic duct with an adequate pancreatic parenchyma and the whole jejunal wall. Complete pancreaticojejunostomy using duct-to-mucosa anastomosis does not require a stent tube. This nonstented method can be considered one of the basic procedures for pancreaticojejunostomy because of its safety and reliability.

Diagnosis of postoperative pancreatic fistula

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic fistula (PF) is a major source of morbidity after pancreatectomy. The International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) defines postoperative fistula by an amylase concentration in the abdominal drain of more than three times the serum value on day 3 or more after surgery. However, this definition fails to identify some clinical fistulas. This study examined the association between lipase measured in abdominal drainage fluid and PF.

METHODS

Amylase and lipase levels in the abdominal drain were measured 3 days after pancreatic resection. Grade B and C fistulas were classified as clinical fistulas, regardless of whether the measured amylase concentration was considered positive or negative. The PF group included patients with a clinical fistula and/or those with positive amylase according to the ISGPF definition.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were included. The median level of lipase was higher in patients with positive amylase than in those with negative amylase: 12,176 versus 64 units/l (P < 0·001). The lipase level was 16,500 units/l in patients with a clinical fistula and 224 units/l in those without a clinical fistula (P = 0·001). Patients with a PF had a higher lipase concentration than those without: 7852 versus 64 units/l (P < 0·001). A lipase level higher than 500 units/l yielded a sensitivity of 88 per cent and a specificity of 75 per cent for PF. For clinical fistulas the sensitivity was 93 per cent and specificity 77 per cent when the threshold for lipase was 1000 units/l.

CONCLUSION

Lipase concentration in the abdominal drain correlated with PF. A threshold of 1000 units/l yielded a high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of clinical PF.

Combined invagination and duct-to-mucosa techniques with modifications: a new method of pancreaticojejunal anastomosis

BACKGROUND

Soft pancreatic texture and a small main pancreatic duct are thought to be the most significant risk factors for the occurrence of pancreatic fistula (PF), a common and serious complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). This is in part due to the technical difficulties of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) posed by a soft gland with a normal-sized duct. To deal with this problem, we developed a new anastomotic technique which combines the two most widely used techniques, namely, the invagination technique and the duct-to-mucosa technique, with a modification of the suture route and insertion of a temporary stent tube.

METHODS

Between January 2003 and December 2009, ninety-two consecutive patients underwent PD in which the new PJ technique was used. Charts and follow-up data of these patients were reviewed for operative details, early postoperative events, and outcomes at 6 months after the operation. PF was defined by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) guidelines and graded (A, B or C) according to the clinical procedures and outcome.

RESULTS

In this group of 92 patients, there was only 1 early death from acute renal failure. PF was observed in 11 patients (12.0%), 8 in grade A, 1 in grade B, and 2 in grade C. For the 2 patients in grade C, PF was surgically managed. There were no early or late deaths attributable to PF. Six months after the operation, all of the patients were free of PJ-related symptoms except for 2, who were found to have steatorrhea.

CONCLUSIONS

Our modified technique is simple and safe in PD. Present data suggest that this technique produces excellent early and medium-term results.

Postoperative pancreatic fistula

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is an important complication after pancreatic resection. The frequency of its incidence varies between 3% after pancreatic head resections and up to 30% following distal pancreatectomy. In recent years, the international definition of pancreatic fistula has been standardised according to the approach of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF). Consequently, results from different studies have become comparable and the historically reported fistula rates can be evaluated more critically. The present review summarises the currently available data on incidence, risk factors, fistula-associated complications and management of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Does the type of pancreaticojejunostomy after Whipple alter the leak rate?

Despite the overwhelming limitations that plague the literature surrounding the optimal method of reestablishing pancreatico-enteric continuity following a Whipple operation, it is clear that all successful techniques conform to sound surgical principles. These principles include a water-tight and tension-free anastomosis, preservation of adequate blood supply for both organs involved in the anastomosis, and minimal trauma to the pancreas gland. Although surgeon experience, gland texture, and pancreatic duct size are clearly the dominate risk factors from a long list of variables associated with pancreatic leaks following pancreatoduodenectomy, these are nonmodifiable covariates. Although the plethora of current literature cannot provide a single definitive technical solution for restoring pancreatico-enteric continuity, a small number of well-designed RCTs support the use of transanastomotic external stenting for high-risk pancreatic glands and an end-to-side invaginated pancreaticojejunostomy. The truth remains that an individual surgeon's mastery of a specific anastomotic technique, in conjunction with a large personal experience, is likely to be the best predictor of a low pancreas leak rate following pancreatoduodenectomy.