The natural course of pancreatic fistula and fluid collection after distal pancreatectomy: is drain insertion needed?

Peripancreatic fluid collections following distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy-when is intervention warranted?

BACKGROUND

Peripancreatic fluid collections after distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy are commonly identified on postoperative cross-sectional imaging. This study aimed to determine the incidence, natural history, and indications for intervention.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of patients with peripancreatic fluid collections after distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy between 2013 and 2018, approved by our institutional review board. The chi-square test was used for categorical variables, the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables, and Fisher's exact test was used for values in which the sample size was less than 5 to compare data.

RESULTS

During the study period, 235 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy, and 182 patients with postoperative imaging were included. In the cohort of patients with postoperative imaging, 83 (46%) had peripancreatic fluid collections, of which 46 (55%) were symptomatic fluid collections (SFCs) and 37 (45%) were asymptomatic fluid collections (AFCs). Those with SFC had a higher incidence of postoperative morbidity (46% vs 8%; P = .0002), most commonly postoperative pancreatic fistula (90%). Of patients with SFC, 34 (74%) underwent treatment via percutaneous drainage (n = 26), endoscopic drainage (n = 7), or antibiotics alone (n = 1). AFCs (n = 37) were observed. Collections that were intervened upon resolved significantly faster than those observed, 3.5 months vs 13.2 months (P < .0001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Asymptomatic patients may be observed with or without serial imaging and the AFC will typically resolve spontaneously with time. Patients who develop symptoms should generally be intervened upon with drainage if deemed feasible, given that this reduces the time to resolution.

Thirty-day prevalence and clinical impact of fluid collections at the resection margin after distal pancreatectomy: Follow-up of a multicentric randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative fluid collections at the resection margin of the pancreatic stump are frequent after distal pancreatectomy, yet their clinical impact is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the 30-day prevalence of postoperative fluid collections after distal pancreatectomy and the factors associated with a clinically relevant condition.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of parenchymal transection with either reinforced, triple-row staple, or ultrasonic dissector underwent routine magnetic resonance 30 days postoperatively. Postoperative fluid collection was defined as a cyst-like lesion of at least 1 cm at the pancreatic resection margin. Postoperative fluid collections requiring any therapy were defined as clinically relevant.

RESULTS

A total of 133 patients were analyzed; 69 were in the triple-row staple transection arm, and 64 were in the ultrasonic dissector transection arm. The overall 30-day prevalence of postoperative fluid collections was 68% (n = 90), without any significant difference between the two trial arms. Postoperative serum hyperamylasemia was more frequent in patients with postoperative fluid collections than those without (31% vs 7%, P = .001). Among the postoperative fluid collection population, an early postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio 14.9, P = .002), post pancreatectomy acute pancreatitis (odds ratio 12.7, P = .036), and postoperative fluid collection size larger than 50 mm (odds ratio 6.6, P = .046) were independently associated with a clinically relevant postoperative fluid collection.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative fluid collections at the resection margin are common after distal pancreatectomy and can be predicted by early assessment of postoperative serum hyperamylasemia. A preceding pancreatectomy acute pancreatitis and/or postoperative pancreatic fistula and large collections (>50 mm) were associated with a clinically relevant postoperative fluid collection, representing targets for closer follow-up or earlier therapeutic interventions.

Assessing Intra-abdominal status for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula based on postoperative fluid collection and drain amylase levels after distal pancreatectomy

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate the intra-abdominal status related to postoperative pancreatic fistula by combining postoperative fluid collection and drain amylase levels.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 203 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy and classified their postoperative abdominal status into four groups based on postoperative fluid collection size and drain amylase levels. We also evaluated the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula in each group according to C-reactive protein values.

Results

The incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula in the entire cohort (n = 203) was 28.1%. Multivariate analysis revealed that postoperative fluid collection, drain amylase levels, and C-reactive protein levels are considerable risk factors for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. In the subgroup with large postoperative fluid collection and high drain amylase levels, 65.9% of patients developed clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. However, no significant difference was observed in C-reactive protein levels between patients with clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula and those without it. In contrast, in the subgroup with a large postoperative fluid collection size or a high amylase level alone, a significant difference was observed in C-reactive protein values between the patients with clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula and those without it.

Conclusion

Postoperative fluid collection status and the C-reactive protein value provide a more precise assessment of intra=abdominal status related to postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy. This detailed analysis may be a clinically reasonable approach to individual drain management.

Survival Comparison of Different Operation Types for Middle Bile Duct Cancer: Bile Duct Resection versus Pancreaticoduodenectomy Considering Complications and Adjuvant Treatment Effects

BACKGROUND

Margin status is one of the most significant prognostic factors after curative surgery for middle bile duct (MBD) cancer. Bile duct resection (BDR) is commonly converted to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) to achieve R0 resection. Additionally, adjuvant treatment is actively performed after surgery to improve survival. However, the wider the range of surgery, the higher the chance of complications; this, in turn, makes adjuvant treatment impossible. Nevertheless, no definitive surgical strategy considers the possible complication rates and subsequent adjuvant treatment. We aimed to investigate the appropriate surgical type considering the margin status, complications, and adjuvant treatment in MBD cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2008 to 2017, 520 patients diagnosed with MBD cancer at the Samsung Medical Center were analyzed retrospectively according to the operation type, margin status, complications, and adjuvant treatment. The R1 group was defined as having a carcinoma margin.

RESULTS

The 5-year survival rate for patients who underwent R0 and R1 resection was 54.4% and 33.3%, respectively (p = 0.131). Prognostic factors affecting the overall survival were the age, preoperative CA19-9 level, T stage, and N stage, but not the operation type, margin status, complications, or adjuvant treatment. The complication rates were 11.5% and 29.8% in the BDR and PD groups, respectively (p < 0.001). We observed no significant difference in the adjuvant treatment ratio according to complications (p = 0.675). Patients with PD who underwent R0 resection and could not undergo chemotherapy because of complications reported better survival rates than those with BDR who underwent R1 resection after adjuvant treatment (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

The survival outcome of patients with R1 margins who underwent BDR did not match those with R0 margins after PD, even after adjuvant treatment. Due to improvements in surgical techniques and the ability to resolve complications, surgical complications exert a marginal effect on survival. Therefore, surgeons should secure R0 margins to achieve the best survival outcomes.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided versus percutaneous drainage for the management of post-operative fluid collections after distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Post-operative pancreatic fluid collections (POPFCs) can be drained using percutaneous or endoscopic approaches. The primary aim of this study was to compare rates of clinical success between endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage (EUSD) with percutaneous drainage (PTD) in the management of symptomatic POPFCs after distal pancreatectomy. Secondary outcomes included technical success, total number of interventions, time to resolution, rates of adverse events (AEs), and POPFC recurrence.

METHODS

Adults who underwent distal pancreatectomy from January 2012 to August 2021 and developed symptomatic POPFC in the resection bed were retrospectively identified from a single academic center database. Demographic data, procedural data, and clinical outcomes were abstracted. Clinical success was defined as symptomatic improvement and radiographic resolution without requiring an alternate drainage modality. Quantitative variables were compared using a two-tailed t-test and categorical data were compared using Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

Of 1046 patients that underwent distal pancreatectomy, 217 met study inclusion criteria (median age 60 years, 51.2% female), of whom 106 underwent EUSD and 111 PTD. There were no significant differences in baseline pathology and POPFC size. PTD was generally performed earlier after surgery (10 vs. 27 days; p < 0.001) and more commonly in the inpatient setting (82.9% vs. 49.1%; p < 0.001). EUSD was associated with a significantly higher rate of clinical success (92.5% vs. 76.6%; p = 0.001), fewer median number of interventions (2 vs. 4; p < 0.001), and lower rate of POPFC recurrence (7.6% vs. 20.7%; p = 0.007). AEs were similar between EUSD (10.4%) and PTD (6.3%, p = 0.28), with approximately one-third of EUSD AEs due to stent migration.

CONCLUSION

In patients with POPFCs after distal pancreatectomy, delayed drainage with EUSD was associated with higher rates of clinical success, fewer interventions, and lower rates of recurrence than earlier drainage with PTD.

Drainage volume on postoperative day one to predict clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula following distal pancreatectomy

Background

The purpose of this study was to determine how the drain fluid volume on the first day after surgery (DFV 1) can be used to predict clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula following distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Method

A retrospective analysis of 175 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy in hepatobiliary surgery at Chengdu 363 Hospital (China) from January 2015 to January 2021 has been performed. Depending on the presence of pancreatic fistula, all patients were divided into two groups: POPF and non-POPF. The clinical factors were analyzed using SPSS 17.0 and Medcalc software. In order to assess the effectiveness of DFV 1 in predicting POPF after surgery, ROC curves were used to calculate its cut-off point,, which yielded sensitivity and negative predictive value of 100% for excluding POPF.

Result

Of the 175 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy, the incidence of overall pancreatic fistula was 36%, but the rate of clinically significant (grade B and C) fistula, as defined by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula, 30 was only 17.1% (28 grade B and 2 grade C fistula). The results from univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that drain fluid volume on the first postoperative day (OR = 0.95, P = 0.03), drainage fluid amylase level on POD1 (OR = 0.99, P = 0.01) and the preoperative ALT level (OR = 0.73, P = 0.02) were independent risk factors associated with CR-POPF. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis revealed that a drainage volume of 156 mL within 24 h and an amylase greater than 3219.2 U/L on the first postoperative day were the optimal thresholds associated with complications.

Conclusion

After distal pancreatectomy, the drainage volume on the first postoperative day can predict the presence of a clinically relevant pancreatic fistula.

Optimal management of peripancreatic fluid collection with postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy: Significance of computed tomography values for predicting fluid infection

Peripancreatic fluid collections have been observed in most patients with postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy; however, optimal management remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the management and outcomes of patients with postoperative pancreatic fistula and verify the significance of computed tomography values for predicting peripancreatic fluid infections after distal pancreatectomy. We retrospectively investigated 259 consecutive patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy. Grade B postoperative pancreatic fistula patients were divided into two subgroups (B-antibiotics group and B-intervention group) and outcomes were compared. Predictive factor analysis of peripancreatic fluid infection was performed. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas developed in 88 (34.0%) patients. The duration of hospitalization was significantly longer in the B-intervention (n = 54) group than in the B-antibiotics group (n = 31; 41 vs. 17 days, p < 0.001). Computed tomography values of the infected peripancreatic fluid collections were significantly higher than those of the non-infected peripancreatic fluid collections (26.3 vs. 16.1 Hounsfield units, respectively; p < 0.001). The outcomes of the patients with grade B postoperative pancreatic fistulas who received therapeutic antibiotics only were considerably better than those who underwent interventions. Computed tomography values may be useful in predicting peripancreatic fluid collection infection after distal pancreatectomy.

A Novel Way of Preventing Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula by Directly Injecting Profibrogenic Materials into the Pancreatic Parenchyma

This paper aims to validate if intrapancreatic injection of penicillin G can enhance hardness and suture holding capacity (SHC) of the pancreas through prompting the fibrosis process. Soft pancreatic texture is constantly mentioned as one of the most contributory predictors of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Soft pancreas has poor SHC and higher incidence of parenchymal tearing, frequently leading to POPF. From a library of 114 antibiotic compounds, we identified that penicillin G substantially enhanced pancreatic hardness and SHC in experimental mice. Specifically, we injected penicillin G directly into the pancreas. On determined dates, we measured the pancreatic hardness and SHC, respectively, and performed molecular and histological examinations for estimation of the degree of fibrosis. The intrapancreatic injection of penicillin G activated human pancreatic stellate cells (HPSCs) to produce various fibrotic materials such as transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1) and metalloproteinases-2. The pancreatic hardness and SHC were increased to the maximum at the second day after injection and then it gradually subsided demonstrating its reversibility. Pretreatment of mice with SB431542, an inhibitor of the TGF-β1 receptor, before injecting penicillin G intrapancreatically, significantly abrogated the increase of both pancreatic hardness and SHC caused by penicillin G. This suggested that penicillin G promotes pancreatic fibrosis through the TGF-β1 signaling pathway. Intrapancreatic injection of penicillin G promotes pancreatic hardness and SHC by enhancing pancreatic fibrosis. We thus think that penicillin G could be utilized to prevent and minimize POPF, after validating its actual effectiveness and safety by further studies.

The Clinical Implications of Peripancreatic Fluid Collection After Distal Pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVES

Pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy (DP) remains an unsolved problem, and postoperative CT imaging often demonstrates fluid collection (FC) around the pancreatic remnant. This study sought to clarify the clinical implications of FC.

METHODS

This study enrolled 146 patients who underwent DP. FC was defined as a cyst-like lesion ≥ 10 mm in diameter on CT imaging at postoperative day (POD) 7. FC size, irregularity of FC margin, and air bubbles in FC were investigated. In addition, clinical data were retrospectively collected, and useful predictive factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Clinically relevant POPF was observed in 26 patients (17.8%), and FC was detected in 136 patients (94.4%). Multivariate analysis identified FC size and drain amylase levels on POD3 as significant risk factors for POPF. Cutoff values were determined by ROC analyses, and the levels of the FC size and drain amylase on POD3 were determined as 41 mm and 1026 IU/L, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of FC diameters > 41 mm were 76.9% and 75.0%, respectively, while those of drain amylase levels > 1026 IU on POD3 were 73.1% and 75.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

While treating some FCs after DP was necessary for the management of POPF, others did not require any intervention since most of them spontaneously disappeared. FC size and drain amylase levels on POD3 were found to be significantly associated with POPF and could potentially help to determine appropriate treatment.

Prediction of Pancreatic Fistula After Distal Pancreatectomy: Is It Necessary to Place Prophylactic Drain?

Background

The aim of this study was to determine the predictive factors for pancreatic fistula (PF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) among preoperative and intraoperative parameters, and to clarify the patients who did not require drain placement.

Methods

Between July 2009 and April 2017, a total of 102 consecutive patients underwent DP at Hyogo College of Medicine. Preoperative and intraoperative data were collected, and the predictors of PF after DP were identified. PF was identified in 35 patients (34%). In the multivariate analysis, 3 factors [body mass index (BMI) ≥22.4, contiguous organ resection, and pancreatic thickness ≥11 mm] were found to be independent predictors of PF (odds ratio, 5.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.9–17; P = 0.002 odds ratio, 6.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.6–28; P = 0.009; odds ratio, 11.6; 95% confidence interval, 3.7–36; P &lt; 0.001, respectively).

Results

A scoring scale for the prediction of PF was developed. BMI ≥22.4 (score: 1), contiguous organ resection (score: 1), and pancreatic thickness ≥11 mm (score: 2) were included in the scoring scale. Patients with a score of 0 never developed PF, whereas PF occurred in all patients with a score of 4.

Conclusions

BMI ≥22.4, contiguous organ resection, and pancreatic thickness ≥11 mm were predictive factors for PF after DP. No patients with BMI &lt;22.4, no contiguous organ resection, and a pancreatic thickness of &lt;11 mm developed PF after DP, indicating that such patients may not require drain placement.

Bile duct segmental resection versus pancreatoduodenectomy for middle and distal common bile duct cancer

Purpose

To compare survival outcomes between bile duct segmental resection (BDR) and pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for the treatment of middle and distal bile duct cancer.

Methods

From 1997 to 2013, a total of 96 patients who underwent curative intent surgery for middle and distal bile duct cancer were identified. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on the type of operation; 20 patients were included in the BDR group and 76 patients were in the PD group. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical outcomes.

Results

The number of lymph nodes (LNs) was significantly greater in patients within the PD group compared to the BDR group. The total number of LNs was 6.5 ± 8.2 vs. 11.2 ± 8.2 (P = 0.017) and the number of metastatic LNs was 0.4 ± 0.9 vs. 1.0 ± 1.5 (P = 0.021), respectively. After a median follow-up period of 24 months (range, 4–169 months), the recurrence-free survival of the PD group was superior to that of the BDR group (P = 0.035). In the patients with LN metastases, the patients undergoing PD had significantly better survival than the BDR group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Surgeons should be cautious in deciding to perform BDR for middle and distal common bile duct cancer. PD is recommended if LN metastases are suspected.