Differentiated approach to pancreatic-enteroanastomosis in pancreaticoduodenal resection: a clinical experimental controlled trial

Background. Despite decreasing mortality in pancreaticoduodenal resection, the incidence of postoperative complications in such patients remains high. The choice and formation of “reliable” pancreatic-enteroanastomosis remain relevant.

Objectives. The improvement of immediate surgery outcomes in pancreaticoduodenal resection via development of a differentiated algorithm for pancreatic-enteroanastomosis formation.

Methods. A prospective non-randomised controlled trial enrolled 90 patients with a pancreaticoduodenal resection surgery. The patients were divided in three cohorts, A (n = 30), B (n = 30) and control C (n = 30). Pancreatic shear wave ultrasound elastography was conducted pre-surgery in main cohorts A and B. Average parenchymal stiffness and intraoperative data decided between the two pancreatico-enteric anastomosis techniques, end-to-side or the original pancreatic-enteroanastomosis. Control cohort C had pancreatico-enteric anastomosis without taking into account the pancreas stiffness and macrocondition.

Results. Class A postoperative pancreatic fistula was registered in 2 (6.7%) of 30 patients in cohort B; it was transient, asymptomatic, not requiring additional treatment or a longer postoperative period. No class B and C pancreatic-enteroanastomosis failures or stump pancreonecroses were observed in main cohorts A and B. Clinically significant class B and C postoperative pancreatic fistulae were registered in 5 (16.7%) of 30 patients in control cohort C (inter-cohort comparison statistically significant).

Conclusion. The proposed differentiated approach to pancreatic-enteroanastomosis formation associates with a reliably low postoperative complication frequency and lack of clinically significant class B and C postoperative pancreatic fistulae.

1. Bray F., Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Siegel R.L., Torre L.A., Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018; 68(6): 394–424. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21492.Erratum in: CA Cancer J. Clin. 2020; 70(4): 313.

2. Lévy P., Domínguez-Muñoz E., Imrie C., Löhr M., Maisonneuve P. Epidemiology of chronic pancreatitis: burden of the disease and consequences. United European Gastroenterol. J. 2014; 2(5): 345–354. DOI: 10.1177/2050640614548208

3. Wang J., Ma R., Churilov L., Eleftheriou P., Nikfarjam M., Christophi C., Weinberg L. The cost of perioperative complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review. Pancreatology. 2018; 18(2): 208–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2017.12.008

4. Reyna-Sepúlveda F., Muñoz-Maldonado G., Pérez-Rodríguez E., Hernández-Trejo F., Guevara-Charles A., Hernández-Guedea M. Prognostic factors for survival and surgical complications in Whipple’s pancreatoduodenectomy during a 10-year experience. Cir. Cir. 2019; 87(2): 205–210. DOI: 10.24875/CIRU.18000526

5. Cameron J.L., He J. Two thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2015; 220(4): 530–536. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.12.031

6. Bassi C., Marchegiani G., Dervenis C., Sarr M., Abu Hilal M., Adham M., Allen P., Andersson R., Asbun H.J., Besselink M.G., Conlon K., Del Chiaro M., Falconi M., Fernandez-Cruz L., Fernandez-Del Castillo C., Fingerhut A., Friess H., Gouma D.J., Hackert T., Izbicki J., Lillemoe K.D., Neoptolemos J.P., Olah A., Schulick R., Shrikhande S.V., Takada T., Takaori K., Traverso W., Vollmer C.R., Wolfgang C.L., Yeo C.J., Salvia R., Buchler M.; International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) defi nition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fi stula: 11 Years After. Surgery. 2017; 161(3): 584–591. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014

7. Shrikhande S.V., Sivasanker M., Vollmer C.M., Friess H., Besselink M.G., Fingerhut A., Yeo C.J., Fernandez-delCastillo C., Dervenis C., Halloran C., Gouma D.J., Radenkovic D., Asbun H.J., Neoptolemos J.P., Izbicki J.R., Lillemoe K.D., Conlon K.C., Fernandez- Cruz L., Montorsi M., Bockhorn M., Adham M., Charnley R., Carter R., Hackert T., Hartwig W., Miao Y., Sarr M., Bassi C., Büchler M.W.; International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Pancreatic anastomosis after pancreatoduodenectomy: A position statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2017; 161(5): 1221–1234. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.021

8. van Rijssen L.B., Zwart M.J., van Dieren S., de Rooij T., Bonsing B.A., Bosscha K., van Dam R.M., van Eijck C.H., Gerhards M.F., Gerritsen J.J., van der Harst E., de Hingh I.H., de Jong K.P., Kazemier G., Klaase J., van der Kolk B.M., van Laarhoven C.J., Luyer M.D., Molenaar I.Q., Patijn G.A., Rupert C.G., Scheepers J.J., van der Schelling G.P., Vahrmeijer A.L., Busch O.R.C., van Santvoort H.C., Groot Koerkamp B., Besselink M.G.; Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. Variation in hospital mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy is related to failure to rescue rather than major complications: a nationwide audit. HPB (Oxford). 2018; 20(8): 759–767. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2018.02.640

9. Xiang Y., Wu J., Lin C., Yang Y., Zhang D., Xie Y., Yao X., Zhang X. Pancreatic reconstruction techniques after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a review of the literature. Expert. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019; 13(8): 797–806. DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2019.1640601

10. Kawada N., Tanaka S. Elastography for the pancreas: Current status and future perspective. World J. Gastroenterol. 2016; 22(14): 3712–3724. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i14.3712

11. Llamoza-Torres C.J., Fuentes-Pardo M., Álvarez-Higueras F.J., Alberca-de-Las-Parras F., CarballoÁlvarez F. Usefulness of percutaneous elastography by acoustic radiation force impulse for the noninvasive diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis. Rev. Esp. Enferm. Dig. 2016; 108(8): 450–456. DOI: 10.17235/reed.2016.4103/2015

12. Yashima Y., Sasahira N., Isayama H., Kogure H., Ikeda H., Hirano K., Mizuno S., Yagioka H., Kawakubo K., Sasaki T., Nakai Y., Tada M., Yoshida H., Omata M., Koike K. Acoustic radiation force impulse elastography for noninvasive assessment of chronic pancreatitis. J. Gastroenterol. 2012; 47(4): 427–432. DOI: 10.1007/s00535-011-0491-x

13. Zaro R., Lupsor-Platon M., Cheviet A., Badea R. The pursuit of normal reference values of pancreas stiffness by using Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (ARFI) elastography. Med. Ultrason. 2016; 18(4): 425–430. DOI: 10.11152/mu-867

14. Kuwahara T., Hirooka Y., Kawashima H., Ohno E., Sugimoto H., Hayashi D., Morishima T., Kawai M., Suhara H., Takeyama T., Yamamura T., Funasaka K., Nakamura M., Miyahara R., Watanabe O., Ishigami M., Shimoyama Y., Nakamura S., Hashimoto S., Goto H. Quantitative evaluation of pancreatic tumor fi brosis using shear wave elastography. Pancreatology. 2016; 16(6): 1063–1068. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2016.09.012

15. Pfahler M.H.C., Kratzer W., Leichsenring M., Graeter T., Schmidt S.A., Wendlik I., Lormes E., Schmidberger J., Fabricius D. Point shear wave elastography of the pancreas in patients with cystic fi - brosis: a comparison with healthy controls. Abdom. Radiol. (NY). 2018; 43(9): 2384–2390. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-018-1479-2

16. Goertz R.S., Schuderer J., Strobel D., Pfeifer L., Neurath M.F., Wildner D. Acoustic radiation force impulse shear wave elastography (ARFI) of acute and chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic tumor. Eur. J. Radiol. 2016; 85(12): 2211–2216. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.10.019

17. D’Onofrio M., Tremolada G., De Robertis R., Crosara S., Ciaravino V., Cardobi N., Marchegiani G., Pulvirenti A., Allegrini V., Salvia R., Bassi C., Pozzi Mucelli R. Prevent Pancreatic Fistula after Pancreatoduodenectomy: Possible Role of Ultrasound Elastography. Dig. Surg. 2018; 35(2): 164–170. DOI: 10.1159/000477475

18. Harada N., Yoshizumi T., Maeda T., Kayashima H., Ikegami T., Harimoto N., Itoh S., Maehara Y. Preoperative Pancreatic Stiffness by Real-time Tissue Elastography to Predict Pancreatic Fistula After Pancreaticoduodenectomy. Anticancer Res. 2017; 37(4): 1909–1915. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.11529

19. Lee T.K., Kang C.M., Park M.S., Choi S.H., Chung Y.E., Choi J.Y., Kim M.J. Prediction of postoperative pancreatic fi stulas after pancreatectomy: assessment with acoustic radiation force impulse elastography. J. Ultrasound. Med. 2014; 33(5): 781–786. DOI: 10.7863/ultra.33.5.781

20. Seetharam P., Rodrigues G.S. Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: A Surgeon’s Nightmare! An Insight with a Detailed Literature Review. JOP. 2015; 16(2): 115–124. DOI: 10.6092/1590-8577/2937

21. Pedrazzoli S. Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and postoperative pancreatic fi stula (POPF): A systematic review and analysis of the POPF-related mortality rate in 60,739 patients retrieved from the English literature published between 1990 and 2015. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96(19): e6858. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006858

22. Malleo G., Pulvirenti A., Marchegiani G., Butturini G., Salvia R., Bassi C. Diagnosis and management of postoperative pancreatic fi stula. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2014; 399(7): 801–810. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-014-1242-2

23. Akgul O., Merath K., Mehta R., Hyer J.M., Chakedis J., Wiemann B., Johnson M., Paredes A., Dillhoff M., Cloyd J., Pawlik T.M. Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy-Stratifi cation of Patient Risk. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2019; 23(9): 1817–1824. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-018-4045-x

24. Smits F.J., Molenaar I.Q., Besselink M.G., Borel Rinkes I.H.M., van Eijck C.H.J., Busch O.R., van Santvoort H.C.; Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. Early recognition of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fi stula: a systematic review. HPB (Oxford). 2020; 22(1): 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.07.005

25. Ke Z.X., Xiong J.X., Hu J., Chen H.Y., Li Q., Li Y.Q. Risk Factors and Management of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Single-center Experience. Curr. Med. Sci. 2019; 39(6): 1009–1018. DOI: 10.1007/s11596-019-2136-x