Skip to main content
Taylor & Francis Open Select logoLink to Taylor & Francis Open Select
. 2016 May 23;51(10):1147–1154. doi: 10.3109/00365521.2016.1169317

Risk factors and preventive strategies for post-operative pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery: a comprehensive review

Kjetil Søreide a,b,*, Knut Jørgen Labori c
PMCID: PMC4975078  PMID: 27216233

Abstract

Background: Pancreas surgery has developed into a fairly safe procedure in terms of mortality, but is still hampered by considerable morbidity. Among the most frequent and dreaded complications are the development of a post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The prediction and prevention of POPF remains an area of debate with several questions yet to be firmly addressed with solid answers.

Methods: A systematic review of systematic reviews/meta-analyses and randomized trials in the English literature (PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane library, EMBASE) covering January 2005 to December 2015 on risk factors and preventive strategies for POPF.

Results: A total of 49 systematic reviews and meta-analyses over the past decade discussed patient, surgeon, pancreatic disease and intraoperative related factors of POPF. Non-modifiable factors (age, BMI, comorbidity) and pathology (histotype, gland texture, duct size) that indicates surgery are associated with POPF risk. Consideration of anastomotic technique and use of somatostatin-analogs may slightly modify the risk of fistula. Sealant products appear to have no effect. Perioperative bleeding and transfusion enhance risk, but is modifiable by focus on technique and training. Drains may not prevent fistulae, but may help in early detection. Early drain-amylase may aid in detection. Predictive scores lack uniform validation, but may have a role in patient information if reliable pre-operative risk factors can be obtained.

Conclusions: Development of POPF occurs through several demonstrated risk factors. Anastomotic technique and use of somatostatin-analogs may slightly decrease risk. Drains may aid in early detection of leaks, but do not prevent POPF.

Keywords: Classification, consensus, definition, morbidity, pancreas fistula, pancreas surgery, prediction

Introduction

Pancreatic surgery is now performed with better safety and lower mortality compared to the past.[1,2] Still, post-operative morbidity remains a challenge and occurs in up to 40–50% of patient, even in modern series.[3–5] Although complication patterns after pancreas surgery differ with type and indication, the most frequent complications reported after a pancreatiocoduodenectomy are delayed gastric emptying, post-operative hemorrhage and post-operative pancreatic fistulas (POPF). Among these, the most frequent and feared complication is the development of a POPF.

An international, uniformally agreed-on definition for pancreatic fistulae was for a long time not present and thus hampered comparison of both study results as well as the reported rates from one institution to another.[6] A suggested common approach has been given by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistulae (ISGPF) in 2005,[7] although different definitions based on drain output of amylase-rich fluid during any given post-operative time period continue to be used.

POPF is believed to result from growth failure in the pancreatic anastomosis with a subsequent leakage of pancreatic juice and enzymes into the abdomen. A pancreatic leak leads to prolonged hospitalization, increased morbidity and is even reported with increased mortality in several series.[8,9] Thus, treatment and associated clinical course is much dependent on the severity of the fistula, suggested split into three severity grades (A–C, see Table 1).[7] Treatment of POPF can be difficult and management may range from a simple observation with or without percutaneous drainage, to the urgent need for reoperation for the management of abdominal sepsis with organ failure and prolonged intensive care.

Table 1.

Consensus parameters for POPF grading (ISGPS criteria).

Grade A B C
Clinical conditions Well Often well Ill appearing/bad
Specific treatmenta No Yes/no Yes
US/CT (if obtained) Negative Negative/positive Positive
Persistent drainage (after 3 weeks) b No Usually yes Yes
Reoperation No No Yes
Death related to POPF No No Possibly yes
Signs of infections No Yes Yes
Sepsis No No Yes
Readmission No Yes/no Yes/no

ISGPS denotes International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery; US: ultrasonography; CT: computed tomographic scan; POPF: post-operative pancreatic fistula. Reproduced from Bassi et al., Surgery 2005 [7].

aPartial (peripheral) or total parenteral nutrition, antibiotics, enteral nutrition, somatostatin analog and/or minimal invasive drainage.

bWith or without a drain in situ.

Several studies have looked into predictive patterns of occurrence, risk features and associated measures to prevent fistulas. A few recent studies, including conducted meta-analyses, have accumulated updated data. The aim of this review was to present the current knowledge on risk factors and preventive strategies for POPF in a collective synopsis.

Methods

We conducted a PubMed/MEDLINE literature search using the search terms alone and in combination of ‘Post-operative’ AND ‘pancreatic fistula’ OR ‘POPF’ AND ‘pancreas surgery’ AND ‘risk factors’ AND ‘risk scores’. Only studies published after 2005 were considered to allow for likely reporting according to the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition issued that year.[7] The search period ended as of 3 December 2015 to cover the emerging evidence over the last decade, since the presentation of the ISGPS definition in 2005. Specific searches were done for combined key words with ‘randomized controlled trials’, ‘prospective trials’ and ‘systematic reviews’, the latter as the topic of POPF has been investigated in several more specific research questions. The final inclusion of papers to cite and refer was made at the discretion of the authors. Where several reports exist, we prioritized the most recent or the one with highest evidence level. Case reports, single-center retrospective studies and editorials were excluded. Specific management of POPF is a long and controversial chapter to cover in itself, and as such studies solely dealing with this aspect of POPF were excluded.

Results

Of a total of 1998 hits in the PubMed literature, we included 49 systematic reviews and meta-analyses,[10–58] all of which were conducted within the last 5 years (2011–2015). Three of these were Cochrane reviews.[29,35,36] Further, randomized clinical trials and trial protocols (for unpublished/ongoing studies) were identified.[59–76] Additional citations, such as prospective clinical evaluation, collective reviews or seminal reports that are influential on the specific concepts were cited when applicable to the topic discussion.

Based on the identified and updated recent literature, we first present and discuss risk estimation of POPF based on surgery and surgical techniques including the type of anastomosis; second, we will discuss pancreas-specific factors including texture and the types of underlying pathology; third, we will discuss biomarkers of risk; further, we will present results from interventions, including use of drains, stents or products; finally, we will discuss the available clinical risk scores and their current role.

Pancreas surgery and POPF

A collective review of all reports using the standard POPF definitions found a POPF rate after pancreaticoduodenectomy in the range of 20–25%, while the fistula rate after distal pancreatectomy exceeded 30%.[26] However, there is considerable bias in this as procedure may be strongly related to the type of underlying pathology. For example, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) had a higher risk of POPF,[77] but this was largely attributed to the fact that these types of tumors more frequently underwent atypical resections and enucleations,[77,78] thus posing a different risk for ductal injury. Similarly, distal pancreatectomies have higher fistula rates (25–40%)[79] than formal pancreas resections, such as pancreaticoduodenectomy. In distal resections, tail resections appear to have higher risk than more central resections,[80] and a systematic review demonstrated superiority of stapler closure over suture closure in distal pancreatectomies.[10] However, the largest RCT on stapler versus hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant (the DISPACT trial) found no difference between the two methods.[61] ‘Wrapping’ techniques using the omentum or falciform ligament to wrap the pancreaticojejunal anastomosis or the pancreatic section of distal pancreatectomy have not been associated with reduction of fistulas.[23] Currently, no differences between laparoscopic and open surgery in the incidence of POPF have been demonstrated in distal resections or pancreaticoduodenectomy for either benign or malignant disease, but data on oncological outcomes are insufficient.[16,81,82] A recent small RCT failed to demonstrate a difference between pancreaticojejunostomy and stapled closure in distal pancreatectomy.[76]

Anastomotic technique after pancreaticoduodenectomy

The best anastomotic technique in pancreas surgery has been an area of controversy for a long time and raised considerable debate among experts and investigators.[83] Several recent studies and meta-analyses have reported POPF results from various variations of surgical anastomotic techniques.[43,47,48,50,65,84,85]. Six meta-analyses [43,45–48,50] have investigated the effect of the two most commonly performed anastomotic techniques for creating continuity between the pancreas remnant and the gastrointestinal tract – pancreaticogastrostomy and pancreaticojejunostomy – and their effect on fistula rates, and found significantly different rates of POPF in all six meta-analyses. The difference in the POPF rates is likely due to the variation in studies included, yet the risk reduction remains similar across studies (odds ratio at about 0.51 in favor of pancreaticogastrostomy). The meta-analyses, although conducted and published within the same time-frame (five published in 2015, one in 2014) include different number of trials and patients (ranging from 4 to 8 randomized trials; and from 676 to 1211 patients included), and also arrive at different conclusions concerning the additional effect on other outcomes, such as biliary fistula rates and intra-abdominal fluid collections. Despite the slight difference in included material, the superiority of pancreaticogastrostomy appears consistent in all the meta-analyses, as all six studies conclude with an overall reduced risk for POPF. Notably, a recent small Canadian RCT found no difference between the two techniques, and the trial was stopped early.[85]

Anastomosis between the pancreatic stump and the jejunum includes various forms ranging from end-to-side duct-to-mucosa anastomosis, end-to-side or end-to-end invagination techniques (dunking). The most frequently used technique for pancreaticojejunostomy is the end-to-side, duct-to-mucosa anastomosis.

A Chinese RCT [75] showed that an invagination technique (‘binding pancreaticojejunostomy’) significantly decreased post-operative complication and pancreaticojejunostomy leakage rates (with fistula rates approaching zero) and shortened hospital stay when compared with conventional pancreaticojejunostomy. However, these results were not confirmed in two French prospective case–control studies.[86,87] Thus, the role of this technique is not yet confirmed or validated externally.

The neck of the pancreas is a vascular watershed between the celiac and superior mesenteric arterial systems. In a prospective, non-randomized study,[88] the blood supply at the cut surface of the pancreas was evaluated, and if found inadequate, the pancreas was cut back 1.5–2.0 cm to improve the blood supply. The technique resulted in a very low POPF rate.

The co-called ‘Blumgart anastomosis’ using transpancreatic U-sutures has also been proposed to decrease the leak rate, and modifications of this technique have achieved a favorable outcome in some non-randomized trials. Others have investigated the effect of separating the pancreaticojejunostomy from the biliary anastomosis, but found no significant difference in fistula rates with single-loop over double-loop (Roux-en-Y) anastomosis.[17]

Some expert centers perform total pancreatectomy in highly selected cases to prevent a POPF from a high-risk pancreatic anastomosis in patients unlikely to tolerate a severe leak. In a recent study from Heidelberg in Germany,[89] around 20% of 434 total pancreatectomies were performed because of the morphology of the otherwise remaining pancreas; athrophic with pre-existing diabetes mellitus, extremely soft or lipomatous pancreas or a pancreas with inherent pancreatitis that would be associated with a presumably unacceptable high risk of anastomosis-related complications; or because of high risks of combined arterial resections and potential POPF. Notably, these are highly selected patients and represent a situation where the pros and cons of total pancreatectomy must be carefully discussed with the patient prior to surgery. While the pertinent information is not easily obtained pre-operatively, the patient’s frailty (presence of comorbidity), the impression of the pancreatic gland on imaging studies (atrophic, small duct), the underlying pathology (benign vs. malign) and the type of procedure planned (respective procedure) may give some advice to the likelihood that a total pancreatectomy may be considered as an alternative to a high-risk pancreatic anastomosis.

Pancreatic gland and duct characteristics

Small pancreatic duct (such as ≤3 mm) has been reported to be an independent risk factor for POPF.[90,91] Gland texture also represents a potential contributing factor in anastomotic failures.[92] A ‘soft gland’ is usually associated with higher risk of POPF, but there is a lack of consensus in how to objectively score this feature. The combination of a soft gland and a small duct increases the risk for fistulae with several magnitudes.[93] One study performed ultrasound elastography intraoperatively in order to quantify the texture of the gland.[94] Others have suggested pre-operative computed tomography (CT) calculated pancreatic remnant volume and duct width to offer useful information about the risk of POPF.[95] Evaluation of the ‘elastic modulus’ by a mechanical method ex vivo has been attempted to correlate with the tactile impression of the operating surgeon.[96] While the measurements correlated well (but not perfect) with the surgeons’ tactile impression of a hard or soft gland, the method is limited by the ex vivo approach. Currently, the surgeon’s tactile impression is what determines gland texture. Whether alternative techniques are warranted to specifically reduce POPF rates in soft glands with small ducts have yet to be demonstrated.

Biomarker and alternative detection techniques

Metabolic profiling of predictive biomarkers has also been attempted.[97] A fluorescent-based chymotrypsin detection probe was able to detect increased enzyme in pancreatic fluid, which correlated with development of fistulae.[98] Validation and generalized availability hampers the daily use of these promising techniques.

Currently, the use of a low albumin level may be the most consistent, widespread available and low cost alternative for prediction of fistula risk.[90,99–101] A study using intraperitoneal microdialysis [97] to monitor intraperitoneal metabolites (glycerol, lactate, pyruvate and glucose) close to the pancreaticojejunostomy showed that patients who later developed clinically significant POPF had higher intraperitoneal glycerol concentrations and lactate/pyruvate ratios, and lower glucose concentrations in combination with an increase in trypsinogen activation peptide. Also, several different measures of amylase in either serum or drain fluids have been proposed to correlate with fistula risk.[102–104]

Stents in pancreatic surgery

Stents to drain the pancreatic duct can be placed externally or internally after pancreatic surgery. Stents represent another controversial area for which evidence is conflicting. One single-institution series found no protective effect of either internal or external stent use, and suggested even some adverse effects to be associated with the placement of stents.[105] A Cochrane systematic review [36] suggested the use of stents to be potentially beneficial, but based on few patients (n = 656) and low-level evidence. In another meta-analysis of four trials comprising 416 patients,[24] the use of external pancreatic duct stenting was found to reduce the incidence of both any grade POPF formation [OR 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23–0.58, p < 0.001] and clinically significant (grade B or C) POPF formation (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30–0.84, p < 0.001) following pancreaticoduodenectomy. The use of internal stents in pancreatic ducts anastomosis did not appear to reduce the rate of POPF in a second meta-analysis,[52] but the evidence is weak and based on limited level 1 evidence. Currently, the jury is still out on this question, and the decision to place a stent or not is left to the surgeon’s discretion.

Post-operative drains

Use of drains to prevent or to assess risk of fistula continues to be debated.[106–109] A recent RCT was stopped prematurely as the no-drain group had an excess mortality compared to the drain group (12% in no-drain compared to 3% for drains), and has argued that routine non-use of drains should be avoided.[64] A subsequent meta-analyses [11] found one RCT and four non-randomized comparative studies recruiting 1728 patients. Patients without prophylactic drainage after pancreaticoduodenectomy had significantly higher mortality (OR =2.32, 95%CI: 1.11–4.85; p = 0.02), despite the fact that they were associated with fewer overall complications (OR =0.62, 95%CI: 0.48–0.82; p = 0.00), major complications (OR =0.75, 95%CI: 0.60–0.93; p = 0.01) and readmissions (OR =0.77, 95%CI: 0.60–0.98; p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in the rates of pancreatic fistula, intra-abdominal abscesses, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage, biliary fistula, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation or radiologic-guided drains between the two groups. Notably, this meta-analyses is highly skewed toward the trial results from the van Buren study,[64] questioning the validity of performing meta-analytic techniques to this question in the first place. Results from the DRAPA trial may give new clues to the role and use of drains in pancreatic surgery.[63]

Somatostatin analogs

Use of octreotide after pancreatic surgery remains a controversial topic.[35,110–112] In a Cochrane review [35] covering 21 trials with a total of 2348 patients, there was a reduction in overall fistula rates with the use of somatostatin-analogs after pancreas surgery (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.55–0.79; n = 2206). However, when investigating those trials that specifically reported clinically relevant fistulae, no difference was found (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.38–1.28; n = 292). Intra-arterial injection of octreotide did not affect gland texture in a small RCT.[70]

Pasireotide is a new somatostatin analog used in the treatment of Cushing syndrome, and with a 40-times higher affinity to the somatostatin-5 receptor compared to other somatostatin-analogs. A recent RCT on pasireotide [113] demonstrated a significant reduction in clinically relevant fistulas, leaks and abscesses (relative risk, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.78; p = 0.006). The effect remained significant in favor of pasireotide when looking specifically at type of surgery (pancreaticoduodenectomy vs. distal resections) and duct size (dilated vs. normal). This drug is currently more costly than other somatostatin-analogs, for which cost-effectiveness have not been demonstrated.[114]

Fibrin sealants and duct occlusion techniques

Covering of the anastomosis with a sealant to protect from leakage is an intuitively attractive approach. However, evidence is weak and most studies report no beneficial effect of this approach.[25,115] No effect of Tachosil™ was reported in a randomized trial.[71] Occlusion of the pancreatic duct with a chemical substance to avoid a pancreatic anastomosis during pancreaticoduodenectomy has been tried in some centers. A Dutch/Italian RCT [116] showed that duct occlusion (Ethibloc, Neoprene or Trasylol) without pancreaticojejunostomy significantly increased the risk of endocrine pancreatic insufficiency. However, the technique did not reduce post-operative complications or mortality, and there has been no widespread use of this method.

Clinical risk scores

Independent risk factors associated with POPF have been proposed in multivariable risk scores for pre-operative risk prediction.[117–121] Common to several scores is that BMI and pancreatic duct size together are strong predictors of the risk of POPF. The Fistula Risk Score proposes four variables on a 10-point scale; however, the score can only be evaluated intraoperatively as it considers the amount of blood loss as one of the risk factors. In addition gland texture, duct size and type of pathology (pancreas mass vs. others) are included.[120] Indeed, intraoperative blood loss appears to be the strongest factor in this construct.[121] Also, the validation effort of a multicenter study was weak at best as it essentially compared results among four surgeons, and thus generalizability has yet to be proven. An alternative score relied on pathologist assessment of pancreatic fibrosis and fatty infiltration, thus hampering the pre-operative assessment of risk.[119] Consequently, only one proposed pre-operative risk score has yet to be externally validated. This appears simple and easy to use and essentially relies on BMI and duct size alone.[118]

Conclusions

The prediction and prevention of POPF remains an area of debate. Patient, surgeon and intraoperative factors are all important in addressing the POPF risk. Non-modifiable factors such as patients’ age, BMI, comorbidity and the underlying pathology that indicate surgery may be inherently associated with risk. Gland texture and duct size are similarly non-modifiable, while choice of anastomotic technique and use of somatostatin-analogs may reduce the POPF risk. Sealant products are not effective. Perioperative bleeding and transfusion increase risk and is object to the surgeons’ meticulous focus on technique. Drains do not prevent fistulae, but may help in early detection and appropriate timely intervention.

Acknowledgments

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

References

  1. Derogar M, Blomberg J, Sadr-Azodi O. Hospital teaching status and volume related to mortality after pancreatic cancer surgery in a national cohort. Br J Surg. 2015;102:548–557. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Gooiker GA, Lemmens VE, Besselink MG, et al. Impact of centralization of pancreatic cancer surgery on resection rates and survival. Br J Surg. 2014;101:1000–1005. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Kimura W, Miyata H, Gotoh M, et al. A pancreaticoduodenectomy risk model derived from 8575 cases from a national single-race population (Japanese) using a web-based data entry system: the 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2014;259:773–780. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Amico EC, Alves JR, Joao SA, et al. Complications after pancreatectomies: prospective study after ISGFP and ISGPS new classifications. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2013;26:213–218. doi: 10.1590/s0102-67202013000300011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Machado NO. Pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy: definitions, risk factors, preventive measures, and management – review. Int J Surg Oncol. 2012:602478. doi: 10.1155/2012/602478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bassi C, Butturini G, Molinari E, et al. Pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatic resection. The importance of definitions. Dig Surg. 2004;21:54–59. doi: 10.1159/000075943. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138:8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fu SJ, Shen SL, Li SQ, et al. Risk factors and outcomes of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatico-duodenectomy: an audit of 532 consecutive cases. BMC Surg. 2015;15:34. doi: 10.1186/s12893-015-0011-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. van der Gaag NA, Harmsen K, Eshuis WJ, et al. Pancreatoduodenectomy associated complications influence cancer recurrence and time interval to death. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:551–558. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.12.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Zhang H, Zhu F, Shen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing three techniques for pancreatic remnant closure following distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg. 2015;102:4–15. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Wang YC, Szatmary P, Zhu JQ, et al. Prophylactic intra-peritoneal drain placement following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:2510–2521. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i8.2510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Vallance AE, Young AL, Macutkiewicz C, et al. Calculating the risk of a pancreatic fistula after a pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review. HPB (Oxford) 2015;17:1040–1048. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Tian Y, Ma H, Peng Y, et al. Preventive effect of omental flap in pancreaticoduodenectomy against postoperative complications: a meta-analysis. Hepato-Gastroenterology. 2015;62:187–189. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Smits FJ, van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, et al. Systematic review on the use of matrix-bound sealants in pancreatic resection. HPB (Oxford) 2015;17:1033–1039. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12472. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ricci C, Casadei R, Taffurelli G, et al. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19:770–781. doi: 10.1007/s11605-014-2721-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mehrabi A, Hafezi M, Arvin J, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas: it’s time to randomize. Surgery. 2015;157:45–55. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.06.081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Klaiber U, Probst P, Knebel P, et al. Meta-analysis of complication rates for single-loop versus dual-loop (Roux-en-Y) with isolated pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2015;102:331–340. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Huttner FJ, Koessler-Ebs J, Hackert T, et al. Meta-analysis of surgical outcome after enucleation versus standard resection for pancreatic neoplasms. Br J Surg. 2015;102:1026–1036. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9819. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cecka F, Lovecek M, Jon B, et al. Intra-abdominal drainage following pancreatic resection: a systematic review. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:11458–11468. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i40.11458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Beger HG, Nakao A, Mayer B, et al. Duodenum-preserving total and partial pancreatic head resection for benign tumors – systematic review and meta-analysis. Pancreatology. 2015;15:167–178. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2015.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Zhou Y, Zhang X, Wu L, et al. Evidence-based value of prophylactic intraperitoneal drainage following pancreatic resection: a meta-analysis. Pancreatology. 2014;14:302–307. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2014.04.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Rondelli F, Desio M, Vedovati MC, et al. Intra-abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection: is it really necessary? A meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. Int J Surg. 2014;12:S40–S47. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ramia JM, de la Plaza R, Adel F, et al. Wrapping in pancreatic surgery: a systematic review. ANZ J Surg. 2014;84:921–924. doi: 10.1111/ans.12491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Patel K, Teta A, Sukharamwala P, et al. External pancreatic duct stent reduces pancreatic fistula: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Int J Surg. 2014;12:827–832. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.06.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Orci LA, Oldani G, Berney T, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of fibrin sealants for patients undergoing pancreatic resection. HPB (Oxford) 2014;16:3–11. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Harnoss JC, Ulrich AB, Harnoss JM, et al. Use and results of consensus definitions in pancreatic surgery: a systematic review. Surgery. 2014;155:47–57. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2013.05.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gomez T, Palomares A, Serradilla M, et al. Reconstruction after pancreatoduodenectomy: pancreatojejunostomy vs pancreatogastrostomy. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014;6:369–376. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v6.i9.369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Drymousis P, Raptis DA, Spalding D, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pancreas resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford) 2014;16:397–406. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Diener MK, Fitzmaurice C, Schwarzer G, et al. Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;11:Cd006053. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Clerveus M, Morandeira-Rivas A, Picazo-Yeste J, et al. Pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:1693–1704. doi: 10.1007/s11605-014-2557-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Cecka F, Jon B, Subrt Z, et al. Surgical technique in distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of randomized trials. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014:482906. doi: 10.1155/2014/482906. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Casadei R, Ricci C, Lazzarini E, et al. Pancreatic resection in patients 80 years or older: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Pancreas. 2014;43:1208–1218. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Qu H, Sun GR, Zhou SQ, et al. Clinical risk factors of delayed gastric emptying in patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:213–223. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2012.12.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Iacono C, Verlato G, Ruzzenente A, et al. Systematic review of central pancreatectomy and meta-analysis of central versus distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg. 2013;100:873–885. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Gurusamy KS, Koti R, Fusai G, et al. Somatostatin analogues for pancreatic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:Cd008370. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008370.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Dong Z, Xu J, Wang Z, et al. Stents for the prevention of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD008914. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008914.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Bai XL, Zhang Q, Masood N, et al. Duct-to-mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis . Chin Med J. 2013;126:4340–4347. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhou Y, Zhou Q, Li Z, et al. The impact of internal or external transanastomotic pancreatic duct stents following pancreaticojejunostomy. Which one is better? A meta-analysis . J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:2322–2335. doi: 10.1007/s11605-012-1987-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Xiong JJ, Altaf K, Mukherjee R, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after intraoperative pancreatic duct stent placement during pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1050–1061. doi: 10.1002/bjs.8788. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sukharamwala P, Thoens J, Szuchmacher M, et al. Advanced age is a risk factor for post-operative complications and mortality after a pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review. HPB (Oxford) 2012;14:649–657. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2012.00506.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Diener MK, Tadjalli-Mehr K, Wente MN, et al. Risk–benefit assessment of closed intra-abdominal drains after pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the current state of evidence. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2011;396:41–52. doi: 10.1007/s00423-010-0716-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Heeger K, Fendrich V, Waldmann J, et al. Reduced complication rate after modified binding purse-string-mattress sutures pancreatogastrostomy versus duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy. Surgeon. 2013;11:246–252. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2013.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhou Y, Yu J, Wu L, et al. Meta-analysis of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy on occurrences of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Asian J Surg. 2015;38:155–160. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2015.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Xia X, Huang C, Cen G, et al. Preoperative diabetes as a protective factor for pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis. Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Dis Int. 2015;14:132–138. doi: 10.1016/s1499-3872(15)60330-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Que W, Fang H, Yan B, et al. Pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Surg. 2015;209:1074–1082. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.07.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Menahem B, Guittet L, Mulliri A, et al. Pancreaticogastrostomy is superior to pancreaticojejunostomy for prevention of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2015;261:882–887. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Liu FB, Chen JM, Geng W, et al. Pancreaticogastrostomy is associated with significantly less pancreatic fistula than pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trials. HPB (Oxford) 2015;17:123–130. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Hallet J, Zih FS, Deobald RG, et al. The impact of pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction on pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. HPB (Oxford) 2015;17:113–122. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Yang C, Wu HS, Chen XL, et al. Pylorus-preserving versus pylorus-resecting pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e90316. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Xiong JJ, Tan CL, Szatmary P, et al. Meta-analysis of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2014;101:1196–1208. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Lei P, Fang J, Huang Y, et al. Pancreaticogastrostomy or pancreaticojejunostomy? Methods of digestive continuity reconstruction after pancreaticodudenectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2014;12:1444–1449. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.10.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Zhou Y, Zhou Q, Li Z, et al. Internal pancreatic duct stent does not decrease pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatic resection: a meta-analysis . Am J Surg. 2013;205:718–725. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.07.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Wu X, Li M, Wu W, et al. The role of prophylactic transpapillary pancreatic stenting in distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis. Front Med. 2013;7:499–505. doi: 10.1007/s11684-013-0296-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Wang Q, He XR, Tian JH, et al. Pancreatic duct stents at pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis. Digest Surg. 2013;30:415–424. doi: 10.1159/000355982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Su AP, Cao SS, Zhang Y, et al. Does internal stenting for pancreaticojejunostomy decrease the rate of pancreatic fistula following pancreatic resections? A meta-analysis. Hepato-Gastroenterology. 2013;60:191–196. doi: 10.5754/hge12327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Jensen EH, Portschy PR, Chowaniec J, et al. Meta-analysis of bioabsorbable staple line reinforcement and risk of fistula following pancreatic resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:267–272. doi: 10.1007/s11605-012-2016-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Ramsey AM, Martin RC. Body mass index and outcomes from pancreatic resection: a review and meta-analysis . J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:1633–1642. doi: 10.1007/s11605-011-1502-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Giglio MC, Spalding DRC, Giakoustidis A, et al. Metaanalysis of drain-amylase content on postoperative day 1 as a predictor of pancreatic fistula following pancreatic resection. Br J Surg. 2016;103:328–336. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Topal B, Fieuws S, Aerts R, et al. Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:655–662. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70126-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Hassenpflug M, Bruckner T, Knebel P, et al. DISCOVER trial – distal resection of the pancreas with or without coverage of the pancreatic remnant: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14:430. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Diener MK, Seiler CM, Rossion I, et al. Efficacy of stapler versus hand-sewn closure after distal pancreatectomy (DISPACT): a randomised, controlled multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011;377:1514–1522. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60237-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Fujii T, Nakao A, Murotani K, et al. Influence of food intake on the healing process of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3905–3912. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4496-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Cecka F, Lovecek M, Jon B, et al. DRAPA trial – closed-suction drains versus closed gravity drains in pancreatic surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:207. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0706-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Van Buren G, 2nd, Bloomston M, Hughes SJ, et al. A randomized prospective multicenter trial of pancreaticoduodenectomy with and without routine intraperitoneal drainage. Ann Surg. 2014;259:605–612. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Tani M, Kawai M, Hirono S, et al. Randomized clinical trial of isolated Roux-en-Y versus conventional reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2014;101:1084–1091. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. El Nakeeb A, Hamdy E, Sultan AM, et al. Isolated Roux loop pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized study. HPB (Oxford) 2014;16:713–722. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Martin I, Au K. Does fibrin glue sealant decrease the rate of anastomotic leak after a pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized trial. HPB (Oxford) 2013;15:561–566. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Figueras J, Sabater L, Planellas P, et al. Randomized clinical trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy on the rate and severity of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1597–1605. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Carter TI, Fong ZV, Hyslop T, et al. A dual-institution randomized controlled trial of remnant closure after distal pancreatectomy: does the addition of a falciform patch and fibrin glue improve outcomes? J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:102–109. doi: 10.1007/s11605-012-1963-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Belyaev O, Polle C, Herzog T, et al. Effects of intra-arterial octreotide on pancreatic texture: a randomized controlled trial. Scand J Surg. 2013;102:164–170. doi: 10.1177/1457496913490457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Montorsi M, Zerbi A, Bassi C, et al. Efficacy of an absorbable fibrin sealant patch (TachoSil) after distal pancreatectomy: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2012;256:853–859. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318272dec0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Frozanpor F, Lundell L, Segersvard R, et al. The effect of prophylactic transpapillary pancreatic stent insertion on clinically significant leak rate following distal pancreatectomy: results of a prospective controlled clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2012;255:1032–1036. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318251610f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Bassi C, Molinari E, Malleo G, et al. Early versus late drain removal after standard pancreatic resections: results of a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252:207–214. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e61e88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Closset J, Journe S, Mboti F, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing somatostatin with octreotide in the prevention of complications after pancreatectomy. Hepato-Gastroenterology. 2008;55:1818–1823. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Peng SY, Wang JW, Lau WY, et al. Conventional versus binding pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2007;245:692–698. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000255588.50964.5d. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Kawai M, Hirono S, Okada KI, et al. Randomized controlled trial of pancreaticojejunostomy versus stapler closure of the pancreatic stump during distal pancreatectomy to reduce pancreatic fistula. Ann Surg. 2015 doi: 10.1097/sla.0000000000001395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Atema JJ, Jilesen AP, Busch OR, et al. Pancreatic fistulae after pancreatic resections for neuroendocrine tumours compared with resections for other lesions. HPB (Oxford) 2015;17:38–45. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Brient C, Regenet N, Sulpice L, et al. Risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistulization subsequent to enucleation. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:1883–1887. doi: 10.1007/s11605-012-1971-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Paye F, Micelli Lupinacci R, Bachellier P, et al. Distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic carcinoma in the era of multimodal treatment. Br J Surg. 2015;102:229–236. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Sell NM, Pucci MJ, Gabale S, et al. The influence of transection site on the development of pancreatic fistula in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy: a review of 294 consecutive cases. Surgery. 2015;157:1080–1087. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.01.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Correa-Gallego C, Dinkelspiel HE, Sulimanoff I, et al. Minimally-invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:129–139. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Lei P, Wei B, Guo W, et al. Minimally invasive surgical approach compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the feasibility and safety. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2014;24:296–305. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Adams DB. The pancreatic anastomosis: the danger of a leak, which anastomotic technique is better? J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:1182–1183. doi: 10.1007/s11605-009-0865-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Li T, Luo LX, Zhang C, et al. End-to-end invaginated pancreaticojejunostomy with three overlapping U-sutures – a safe and simple method of pancreaticoenteric anastomosis. J Invest Surg. 2015;28:115–119. doi: 10.3109/08941939.2014.982313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Grendar J, Ouellet JF, Sutherland FR, et al. In search of the best reconstructive technique after pancreaticoduodenectomy: pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy. Can J Surg. 2015;58:010014. doi: 10.1503/cjs.010014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Buc E, Flamein R, Golffier C, et al. Peng’s binding pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a French prospective study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:705–710. doi: 10.1007/s11605-009-1125-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Maggiori L, Sauvanet A, Nagarajan G, et al. Binding versus conventional pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:1395–1400. doi: 10.1007/s11605-010-1212-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Strasberg SM, Drebin JA, Mokadam NA, et al. Prospective trial of a blood supply-based technique of pancreaticojejunostomy: effect on anastomotic failure in the Whipple procedure. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;194:746–758. doi: 10.1016/s1072-7515(02)01202-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Hartwig W, Gluth A, Hinz U, et al. Total pancreatectomy for primary pancreatic neoplasms: renaissance of an unpopular operation. Ann Surg. 2015;261:537–546. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Liu QY, Zhang WZ, Xia HT, et al. Analysis of risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:17491–17497. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i46.17491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Su AP, Zhang Y, Ke NW, et al. Triple-layer duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy with resection of jejunal serosa decreased pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Surg Res. 2014;186:184–191. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.08.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Distler M, Kersting S, Ruckert F, et al. Chronic pancreatitis of the pancreatic remnant is an independent risk factor for pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy. BMC Surg. 2014;14:54. doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-14-54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Ansorge C, Strommer L, Andren-Sandberg A, et al. Structured intraoperative assessment of pancreatic gland characteristics in predicting complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1076–1082. doi: 10.1002/bjs.8784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Hatano M, Watanabe J, Kushihata F, et al. Quantification of pancreatic stiffness on intraoperative ultrasound elastography and evaluation of its relationship with postoperative pancreatic fistula. Int Surg. 2015;100:497–502. doi: 10.9738/INTSURG-D-14-00040.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Frozanpor F, Loizou L, Ansorge C, et al. Correlation between preoperative imaging and intraoperative risk assessment in the prediction of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy. World J Surg. 2014;38:2422–2429. doi: 10.1007/s00268-014-2556-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Sugimoto M, Takahashi S, Kojima M, et al. What is the nature of pancreatic consistency? Assessment of the elastic modulus of the pancreas and comparison with tactile sensation, histology, and occurrence of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery. 2014;156:1204–1211. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.05.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Ansorge C, Regner S, Segersvard R, et al. Early intraperitoneal metabolic changes and protease activation as indicators of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99:104–111. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Yamashita S, Sakabe M, Ishizawa T, et al. Visualization of the leakage of pancreatic juice using a chymotrypsin-activated fluorescent probe. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1220–1228. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Fujiwara Y, Shiba H, Shirai Y, et al. Perioperative serum albumin correlates with postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:499–503. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Huang R, Liu B, Chen H, et al. Risk factors and medico-economic effect of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2015:917689. doi: 10.1155/2015/917689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Kim DH, Choi SH, Choi DW, et al. Division of surgeon workload in pancreaticoduodenectomy: striving to decrease post-operative pancreatic fistula. ANZ J Surg. 2015 doi: 10.1111/ans.13038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Partelli S, Tamburrino D, Crippa S, et al. Evaluation of a predictive model for pancreatic fistula based on amylase value in drains after pancreatic resection . Am J Surg. 2014;208:634–639. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.03.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Palani Velu LK, Chandrabalan VV, Jabbar S, et al. Serum amylase on the night of surgery predicts clinically significant pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford) 2014;16:610–619. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Israel JS, Rettammel RJ, Leverson GE, et al. Does postoperative drain amylase predict pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy? J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:978–987. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.01.048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Sachs TE, Pratt WB, Kent TS, et al. The pancreaticojejunal anastomotic stent: friend or foe? Surgery. 2013;153:651–662. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2012.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Ansorge C, Nordin JZ, Lundell L, et al. Diagnostic value of abdominal drainage in individual risk assessment of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2014;101:100–108. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9362. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Fong ZV, Correa-Gallego C, Ferrone CR, et al. Early drain removal – the middle ground between the drain versus no drain debate in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective validation study. Ann Surg. 2015;262:378–383. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Behrman SW, Zarzaur BL, Parmar A, et al. Routine drainage of the operative bed following elective distal pancreatectomy does not reduce the occurrence of complications. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19:72–79. doi: 10.1007/s11605-014-2608-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. McMillan MT, Fisher WE, Van Buren G, 2nd, et al. The value of drains as a fistula mitigation strategy for pancreatoduodenectomy: something for everyone? Results of a randomized prospective multi-institutional study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19:21–30. doi: 10.1007/s11605-014-2640-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. McMillan MT, Christein JD, Callery MP, et al. Prophylactic octreotide for pancreatoduodenectomy: more harm than good? HPB (Oxford) 2014;16:954–962. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Droeser RA, Jeanmonod P, Schuld J, et al. Octreotide prophylaxis is not beneficial for biochemical activity and clinical severity of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery. Digest Surg. 2012;29:484–491. doi: 10.1159/000345874. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Kurumboor P, Palaniswami KN, Pramil K, et al. Octreotide does not prevent pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with soft pancreas and non-dilated duct: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19:2038–2044. doi: 10.1007/s11605-015-2925-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Allen PJ, Gonen M, Brennan MF, et al. Pasireotide for postoperative pancreatic fistula. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2014–2022. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1313688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Anderson R, Dunki-Jacobs E, Burnett N, et al. A cost analysis of somatostatin use in the prevention of pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy. World J Surg. 2014;38:2138–2144. doi: 10.1007/s00268-014-2512-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Hanna EM, Martinie JB, Swan RZ, et al. Fibrin sealants and topical agents in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a critical appraisal. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2014;399:825–835. doi: 10.1007/s00423-014-1215-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Tran K, Van Eijck C, Di Carlo V, et al. Occlusion of the pancreatic duct versus pancreaticojejunostomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2002;236:422–428. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200210000-00004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Yamamoto Y, Sakamoto Y, Nara S, et al. A preoperative predictive scoring system for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Surg. 2011;35:2747–2755. doi: 10.1007/s00268-011-1253-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Roberts KJ, Hodson J, Mehrzad H, et al. A preoperative predictive score of pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford) 2014;16:620–628. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Gaujoux S, Cortes A, Couvelard A, et al. Fatty pancreas and increased body mass index are risk factors of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery. 2010;148:15–23. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  120. Miller BC, Christein JD, Behrman SW, et al. A multi-institutional external validation of the fistula risk score for pancreatoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:172–179. doi: 10.1007/s11605-013-2337-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  121. Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, et al. A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES