Abstract
Various modifications of the reconstruction following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) have been described. Pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) was first described clinically by Waugh and Clagett from the Mayo Clinic in 1946. Despite recent randomized trials and meta-analysis, the literature is still ambiguous as to which is a safer procedure. We hereby describe our experience of more than 400 pancreaticogastrostomies. The legacy of performing only pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) started by the senior author (BMLK) continued from 1977 to date in this surgical unit of a tertiary care hospital. We present the results of this case series analysis of a total of 467 Whipple’s pancreaticoduodenectomy in whom PG was performed. The mean operative time was 260.8 ± 50.3 min (180–390 min) with an average blood loss of 1068 ± 606.19 ml (400–2600 ml). None of the patients had clinically significant POPF. Thirty-five patients had postoperative bleeding out of which 12 were early and 23 had delayed hemorrhage. The most common postoperative complication was delayed gastric emptying which was seen in 96 patients (20.5%). Transient bile leak was seen in 84 patients (18%). Wound infection was seen in 70 (15%) patients. The overall 30-day mortality was 2% (10 out of 400). PG as a reconstructive technique is a safe option following PD with minimal incidence of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) as shown in our series of more than 400 patients. This is the largest series to date of pancreaticogastrostomy following PD.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Krishna A et al (2015) Preventing delayed gastric emptying after Whipple’s procedure—isolated roux loop reconstruction with pancreaticogastrostomy. Indian J Surg 77(2):703–707
Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13
Whipple AO, Parsons WB, Mullins CR (1935) Treatment of carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater. Ann Surg 102(4):763–779
Xiong JJ et al (2014) Meta-analysis of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 101.10:1196–1208
Liang TB, Bai XL, Zheng SS (2007) Pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: diagnosed according to International Study Group Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition. Pancreatology 7:325–331
Kapur BML, Misra MC, Seenu V, Goel AK (1998) Pancreaticogastrostomy for reconstruction of pancreatic stump after pancreaticoduodenectomy for ampullary carcinoma. Am J Surg 176(3):274–278
Waugh JM, Clagett OT (1946) Resection of the duodenum and head of the pancreas for carcinoma; an analysis of thirty cases. Surgery 20:224–232
Bassi C, Falconi M, Molinari E, Salvia R, Butturini G, Sartori N, Mantovani W, Pederzoli P (2005) Reconstruction by pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy following pancreatectomy: results of a comparative study. Ann Surg 242:767–771
Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Maher MM, Sauter PK, Zahurak ML, Talamini MA, Lillemoe KD, Pitt HA (1995) A prospective randomized trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 222:580–588
Duffas JP, Suc B, Msika S, Fourtanier G, Muscari F, Hay JM, French Associations for Research in Surgery et al (2005) A controlled randomized multicenter trial of pancreatogastrostomy or pancreatojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 189:720–729
Wente MN, Shrikhande SV, Müller MW, Diener MK, Seiler CM, Friess H, Büchler MW (2007) Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg 193:171–183
Xiong JJ, Altaf K, Mukherjee R, Huang W, Hu WM, Li A, Ke NW, Liu XB (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after intraoperative pancreatic duct stent placement during pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 99:1050–1061
Keck T, Wellner UF, Bahra M, Klein F, Sick O, Niedergethmann M, Wilhelm TJ, Farkas SA, Börner T, Bruns C, Kleespies A (2016) Pancreatogastrostomy versus pancreatojejunostomy for RECOnstruction after PANCreatoduodenectomy (RECOPANC, DRKS 00000767): perioperative and long-term results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 263(3):440–449
Wellner UF, Sick O, Olschewski M, Adam U, Hopt UT, Keck T (2012) Randomized controlled single-center trial comparing pancreatogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after partial pancreatoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 16:1686–1695
Topal B, Fieuws S, Aerts R, Weerts J, Feryn T, Roeyen G, Belgian Section of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery et al (2013) Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 14:655–662
Takao S et al (1993) Modified pancreaticogastrostomy following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 165(3):317–321
Topal B, Fieuws S, Aerts R, Weerts J, Feryn T, Roeyen G, Belgian Section of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery et al (2013) Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 14:655–662
Figueras J, Sabater L, Planellas P, Muñoz-Forner E, Lopez-Ben S, Falgueras L, Sala-Palau C, Albiol M, Ortega-Serrano J, Castro-Gutierrez E (2013) Randomized clinical trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy on the rate and severity of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 100:1597–1605
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Krishna, A., Bansal, V.K., Kumar, S. et al. Pancreaticogastrostomy After Whipple’s Surgery Avoids Pancreatic Fistula—a Large Case Series Analysis. Indian J Surg 82, 415–420 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-019-01991-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-019-01991-4