A modified single-needle continuous suture of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy

Background

The pancreatic reconstruction technique decides the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). This study aims to evaluate the safety of modified single-needle continuous suture (SNCS) of duct-to-mucosa and compare the efficacy with double-layer continuous suture (DLCS) of duct-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) in open PD (OPD).

Methods

A total of 266 patients that received PD between January 2019 and May 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 130 patients underwent DLCS, and 136 patients underwent SNCS [73 OPD and 63 laparoscopic PD (LPD)]. The primary outcome was clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) according to the definition of the revised 2016 International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF). Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to reduce confounding bias.

Results

A total of 66 pairs were successfully matched using PSM in OPD. No significant difference was observed in the occurrence of CR-POPF between the two groups (9.1% vs. 21.2%, P=0.052). However, the median duration of operation and PJ was shorter in the SNCS group. The incidence of CR-POPF in LPD was 9.5%. Furthermore, regarding the alternative fistula risk score (a-FRS), the CR-POPF rate were 2.1%, 10.5%, and 15.6% in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups (P=0.067).

Conclusions

The SNCS is a facile, safe, and effective PJ technique and does not increase the incidence of POPF, regardless of a-FRS stratification, pancreatic texture, and main pancreatic duct (MPD) size.

Is Invagination Anastomosis More Effective in Reducing Clinically Relevant Pancreatic Fistula for Soft Pancreas After Pancreaticoduodenectomy Under Novel Fistula Criteria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: To define the effectiveness of different anastomosis on clinically relevant postoperative fistula in patients with soft pancreas using the newest version of the fistula definition and criteria.

Background: Different criteria of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) result in the optimal anastomosis technique remaining controversial.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched up to 20 April 2020, and were evaluated by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials comparing duct-to-mucosa anastomosis vs. invagination anastomosis in pancreatic surgery were included.

Result: Seven studies involving 1,110 participants were included. Using the postoperative pancreatic fistula definition provided by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery 2016, the incidence rate of grade B/C pancreatic fistula was significantly lower in patients experiencing invagination anastomosis than in those undergoing duct-to-mucosa anastomosis. Four of seven trials comparing invagination with duct-to-mucosa anastomosis in patients with a soft pancreas showed that invagination was significantly better than duct-to-mucosa anastomosis in controlling pancreatic fistula formation, but no significant difference was detected between the two anastomosis techniques in patients with a hard pancreas. No significant difference in the length of hospital stay or postoperative mortality rate was found between the two methods.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated superiority of invagination anastomosis over duct-to-mucosa anastomosis in reducing the risk of Grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula using the ISGPS 2016 definition, but it does not significantly reduce the mortality rate or length of hospital stay. The effect of invagination in reducing pancreatic fistula formation is obvious in patients with a soft pancreas, but there is no significant difference between the two anastomosis techniques in patients with a hard pancreas. We found a lower rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula in the invagination group, in patients with a soft pancreas.

Selection of pancreaticojejunostomy technique after pancreaticoduodenectomy: duct-to-mucosa anastomosis is not better than invagination anastomosis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

One of the most clinically significant current discussions is the optimal pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) technique for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). We performed a meta-analysis to compare duct-to-mucosa and invagination techniques for pancreatic anastomosis after PD.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to June 1, 2018 was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing duct-to-mucosa versus invagination PJ were included. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 1099 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was not significantly different between the duct-to-mucosa PJ (110/547, 20.10%) and invagination PJ (98/552, 17.75%) groups in all 8 studies (risk ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.89-1.44; P = .31). The subgroup analysis using the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula criteria showed no significant difference in POPF between duct-to-mucosa PJ (97/372, 26.08%) and invagination PJ (78/377, 20.68%). No significant difference in clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) was found between the 2 groups (55/372 vs 40/377, P = .38). Additionally, no significant differences in delayed gastric emptying, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage, reoperation, operation time, or length of stay were found between the 2 groups. The overall morbidity and mortality rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The duct-to-mucosa technique seems no better than the invagination technique for pancreatic anastomosis after PD in terms of POPF, CR-POPF, and other main complications. Further studies on this topic are therefore recommended.

Duct-to-mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis

Objective

We aimed to compare the two most commonly used pancreatico-jejunostomy reconstruction techniques—duct-to-mucosa and invagination.

Methods

Databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and several clinical trial registration centers were searched. Randomized controlled trials that compared duct-to-mucosa and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy techniques after pancreaticoduodenectomy were included and analyzed.

Results

In total, seven RCTs were included, involving 850 patients. The difference in postoperative pancreatic fistula rate between the duct-to-mucosa and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy was not significant (RR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.76-1.39, P = 0.86). There was no significant difference in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula between the two groups (RR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.15-3.96, P = 0.77). The overall morbidity, overall mortality, delayed gastric emptying, intra-abdominal collection, reoperation rate, and length of hospital stay between the two groups were not significantly different. Sensitivity analysis showed that the meta-analysis was stable. Further, no significant publication bias was seen.

Conclusions

Duct-to-mucosa and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy techniques after pancreaticoduodenectomy were comparable in terms of postoperative pancreatic fistula incidence and other parameters.

Pancreaticojejunostomy: Does the technique matter? A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Despite a large number of studies, the ideal technique of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains debatable. We compared the two most common techniques of PJ (duct-to-mucosa and dunking) in a randomized trial.

METHODS

This open-label randomized trial was done at a tertiary care center from January 2009 to October 2015. Patients with resectable periampullary tumours with a pancreatic duct diameter ≥2 mm, requiring PD were randomly assigned to one of the two techniques using computer generated random numbers. The primary outcome was postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate and secondary outcomes were frequency of other postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 193 patients were randomized and analyzed (intention-to-treat analysis), 97 in duct-to-mucosa and 96 in dunking group. Both groups were comparable for baseline demographic and clinical profiles. The incidence of POPF in the entire study group was 23.8%. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (24.7% vs 22.9%, P = 0.71). Similarly, the incidence of grades B and C (clinically significant) POPF was comparable (16.5% vs 13.5%, P = 0.57). Both groups were comparable with respect to the secondary outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The duct-to-mucosa technique of PJ after PD is not superior to the dunking technique with respect to POPF rate. (CTRI/2010/091/000531).

Dunking pancreaticojejunostomy versus duct-to-mucosa anastomosis

Following the resectional aspect of pancreaticoduodenectomy, three anastomoses are used to reestablish gastrointestinal continuity. The pancreatic-enteric anastomosis is by far the most problematic, and has been considered by many the Achilles heel of the pancreaticoduodenal resection. Multiple clinical trials have been published focusing on improving outcomes of the pancreatic-enteric anastomosis, including elements such as the use of prophylactic octreotide, the use of sealants, stenting of the pancreatic duct, and surgical technique. There are two widely used methods to accomplish an end-to-side pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) after pancreaticoduodenectomy: either invagination PJ or duct-to-mucosa PJ. Two prospective randomized trials have evaluated these techniques, the first a trial by Bassi and co-authors, and the second a trial by Berger et al. In this article we will focus on our current technique for both invagination pancreaticojejunostomy and duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy, recognizing that careful surgical technique, surgeon experience, and surgical volume are factors that are important in yielding the best outcomes.