Abstract
The main purpose is to compare the efficacy of cystogastrostomy (CG) and Roux-en-Y-type cystojejunostomy (RCJ) in the treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst (PPC), and to explore the risk factors of recurrence and complications after internal drainage.
Two hundred eight patients undergoing either CG or RCJ for PPC Between January 1, 2013and February 1, 2019, at West China Hospital of Sichuan University were retrospectively analyzed. The cure rate, complication rate and related factors were compared between the 2 groups.
Two hundred eight patients with PPC underwent either a CG (n = 119) or RCJ (n = 89). The median follow-up time was 42.7 months. Between the 2 cohorts, there were no significant differences in cure rate, reoperation rate, and mortality (all P > .05). The operative time, estimated intraoperative blood loss, install the number of drainage tubes and total expenses in CG group were lower than those in RCJ group (all P < .05). The Logistic regression analysis showed that over twice of pancreatitis’ occurrence was were independent risk factor for recurrence after internal drainage of PPC (OR 2.760, 95% CI 1.006∼7.571, P = .049). Short course of pancreatitis (OR 0.922, 95% CI 0.855∼0.994, P = .035), and RCJ (OR 2.319, 95% CI 1.033∼5.204, P = .041) were independent risk factors for complications after internal drainage of PPC.
Both CG and RCJ are safe and effective surgical methods for treating PPC. There were no significant differences in cure rate, reoperation rate, and mortality between the 2 groups, while the CG group had a short operation time, less intraoperative bleeding and less cost.
Keywords: complication, internal drainage, pancreatic pseudocyst, recurrence, risk factor
1. Introduction
Pancreatic pseudocyst (PPC) is a collection of pancreatic juice surrounded by a fibrous or granulation tissue wall that occurs at least 4 weeks after the onset of symptoms.[1] It is often caused by acute pancreatitis, pancreatic trauma or chronic pancreatitis. PPC is usually sterile, the lesion is called “pancreatic abscess” when infection occur.[2] Pseudocysts may have no obvious symptoms, but it also can be associated with symptoms such as abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, bloating, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and abdominal mass. Most pancreatic pseudocysts are expected to self-cure, and about one-third of patients require intervention for complications such as bleeding, compression of organs, and infection.[3,4] PPC can be treated with a variety of methods: percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic ultrasonography assist, laparoscopic surgery, or open internal drainage. But when and how to choose the best surgical method is still unclear. Open internal drainage surgery is the classic procedure for the treatment of PPC, it is indicated for a significant number of cases.[4–6] We reviewed the literatures and found no relevant studies comparing different internal drainage methods. Thus, the purposes of this study were, first, to compare perioperative and long-term outcomes for patients undergoing either cystogastrostomy (CG) or Roux-en-Y-type cystojejunostomy (RCJ) for management of PPC; and second, to analysis the risk factors of recurrence and complications after PPC internal drainage.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Patient characteristics
We included all patients with acute or chronic PPC who were treated at West China Hospital of Sichuan University between January 1, 2013 and February 1, 2019. Patients’ data were retrospectively collected by review of clinical records of the information Center of the West China Hospital. The retrospective study was reviewed by the ethics committee of west China hospital of Sichuan university; review Number [2019 review (1049)].
Inclusion and exclusion criteria of this study are as follows. Inclusion criteria: Patients with PPC, no matter caused by chronic or acute pancreatitis, and CG or RCJ have been performed. Exclusion criteria:
-
1.
Age less than 8 years old.
-
2.
Other pancreas surgeries were performed at the same time.
-
3.
Patients with direct anastomosis of small entero-pseudocyst.
-
4.
Patients lost to follow-up.
Successful operation was defined as the establishment of anastomotic stoma, and the postoperative reexamination of pseudocysts disappeared or decreased significantly. Recurrence is defined as the appearance of a new pseudocyst after the success treatment. Complications refer to 1 or more of the following: recurrence, pancreatitis, infection, intestinal obstruction, effusion, etc. We defined the postoperative fever as a postoperative temperature over 38.0°C. Worsening exocrine insufficiency is defined as the need for oral digestive enzyme-assisted digestion in patients’ daily life. Alike, worsening endocrine insufficiency is defined as the need to increase medication to control blood sugar or newly diagnosed diabetes. The diagnosis of sinistral portal hypertension was based on clinical presentation, laboratory tests, and radiological evaluations. The normal liver condition, isolated gastric varices (with/without esophageal varices), and/or splenomegaly is the characteristic of sinistral portal hypertension; patients with AP who had no signs of a liver disease but demonstrated isolated gastric varices (with/without esophageal varices) and/or splenomegaly on the Magnetic Resonance Imaging or computerized tomography (CT) scans were considered to have sinistral portal hypertension.[7,8] The size of the pseudocyst is indicated by its maximum diameter.
2.2. Data collection
All patients underwent preoperative abdominal enhanced CT or Magnetic Resonance Imaging to assess the location, size, and surrounding anatomy of the PPC. We recorded the following data: demographic information (gender, age, body mass index, etiology of pancreatitis); initial symptoms; initial onset time; imaging performance including the cyst size, location and number; the main symptoms of pancreatic pseudocysts including abdominal pain, compression obstruction, bleeding, infection, and rupture; details of internal drainage surgery; average length of hospital stay and total cost patients; Postoperative complications and long-term prognosis. We have identified the following indicators to assess perioperative related conditions: operation time, estimated blood loss, gastric tube retention time, postoperative fever, length of hospital stay, etc. We determined the following data to evaluate the long-term outcome: cure rate, overall complication, need for reoperation, and survival rate. Additionally, we regard deterioration of glucose and worsening exocrine insufficiency as secondary outcome index. Patients with insufficient follow-up information were excluded from this study.
2.3. Data analysis
The data were grouped as categorical and continuous variable based on clinical characteristics. Patients undergoing CG and RCJ were compared in demographic information, perioperative index, postoperative complications, exocrine enzyme requirements, recurrence of PPC and survival, etc. Parameters that lost more than 10% of the total will be excluded from statistical analysis. To explore the independent risk factors for recurrence of PPC; all indicators with P < .1 in univariate analysis were included in logistic regression scores. Continuous variables were expressed as the mean and standard deviation. Categorical variables were summarized as frequency and percentage rates. The Chi-Squared test was used for two-category variables. T test, Fisher exact test and Mann–Whitney U test were used to compare outcomes with a P value of <.05 representing statistical significance. Statistical analysis was performed using Excel 2016 and SPSS 24.0 software.
3. Results
3.1. Patient demographics and disease characteristics
From January 2013 to February 2019, 208 patients underwent either CG (n = 119) or RCJ (n = 89) for management of pancreatic pseudocyst. The average follow-up time of patients was 42.7 months. Baseline demographic information and disease characteristics were analyzed and compared as shown in Table 1. There were no significant differences in gender, age, BMI, initial onset time and the etiologies of pancreatitis between the 2 surgical cohorts (all P > .05). Additionally, analysis showed that there was no marked difference in the choice of surgical approach for the location and size of the pseudocyst. The above results indicate that the baseline levels of the 2 groups of patients in this study are consistent and have clinical comparable.
Table 1.
Patient demographics and disease characteristics.
| Characteristics | CG (n = 119) | RCJ (n = 89) | P |
| Mean age (years) | 46.3 ± 12.6 | 47.8 ± 14.0 | .408 |
| Sex (%) | .154 | ||
| Male | 67 (56.3%) | 59 (66.3%) | |
| Female | 52 (43.7%) | 30 (33.7%) | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.6 ± 2.8 | 22.1 ± 3.1 | .208 |
| Smoking (%) | 48 (40.3%) | 39 (43.8%) | .671 |
| Etiology of pancreatitis (%) | .704 | ||
| Gallstones | 80 (67.2%) | 57 (64.0%) | |
| Traumatic | 7 (5.9%) | 6 (6.7%) | |
| Alcohol | 5 (4.2%) | 3 (3.4%) | |
| Hyperlipemia | 15 (12.5%) | 8 (9.0%) | |
| Chronic pancreatitis | 4 (3.4%) | 4 (4.5%) | |
| Iatrogenic | 4 (3.4%) | 3 (3.4%) | |
| Idiopathic | 4 (3.4%) | 8 (9.0%) | |
| Initial onset time (months) | 4 (0.5–120.0) | 4 (1–36.0) | 0.643 |
| Preoperative puncture drainage (%) | 24 (20.2%) | 24 (27.0%) | 0.318 |
| Cyst location (%) | 0.147 | ||
| pancreatic head and neck | 48 (40.3%) | 27 (30.3%) | |
| pancreatic body and tail | 71 (59.7%) | 62 (69.7%) | |
| Size of the cyst (cm) | 10.7 ± 4.2 | 10.1 ± 4.2 | 0.151 |
| Portal hypertension (%) | 57 (47.9%) | 33 (37.1%) | 0.123 |
| SAP times (≥2) (%) | 70 (58.8%) | 49 (55.1%) | 0.671 |
BMI = Body Mass Index, SAP = severe acute pancreatitis.
3.2. Perioperative characteristics
The choice of surgical procedure is determined by the surgeon intraoperatively, and all procedures are performed by a doctor with extensive experience in pancreatic surgery. Comparing the characteristics of CG and RCJ perioperative period, there was no significant statistical difference in the length of hospital stay (15.6 ± 9.1 vs 16.2 ± 11.2, P = .675), postoperative fever [49 (41.2%) vs 47 (52.8%), P = .122] and death rate [0 vs 1 (1.1%), P = .428]. Compared with RCJ, CG resulted in less operative time (107.2 ± 33.5 vs 126.7 ± 36.1, P < .01), estimated blood loss [50 (10–700) vs 60 (15–800), P = .011] and lower total costs [41548.3 (20789.5–186619.0) vs 46353.9 (17404.0–246000.7) CNY, P = .037]. Comparison of perioperative details are shown in Table 2.
Table 2.
Perioperative details for patients undergoing CG versus RCJ.
| Characteristics | CG (n = 119) | RCJ (n = 89) | P |
| Operative time (minutes) | 107.2 ± 33.5 | 126.7 ± 36.1 | P < .01 |
| Estimated blood loss (ml) | 50 (10–700) | 60 (15–800) | .011 |
| Gastric tube retention time (d) | 5 (1–21) | 3 (0–12) | P < .01 |
| Number of plasma tubes | 1 (0–3) | 1 (0–5) | P < .01 |
| Plasma tube retention time (d) | 5 (0–15) | 6 (0–13) | .083 |
| Postoperative fever Cases (%) | 49 (41.2%) | 47 (52.8%) | .122 |
| Length of stay (d) | 15.6 ± 9.1 | 16.2 ± 11.2 | .675 |
| Death (%) | 0 | 1 (1.1%) | .428 |
| Total expenses (¥) | 41548.3 | 46353.9 | .037 |
| (20789.5–186619.0) | (17404.0–246000.7) |
3.3. Postoperative Complications
Postoperative complications and long-term follow-up indicators are shown in Table 3. No significant differences were noted between patients undergoing either CG or RCJ with regard to recurrence [9 (7.5%) vs 10 (11.2%), P = .463], reoperation [8 (6.7%) vs 8 (9.0%), P = .604]. However, the overall complication rate in group RCJ was higher than that in group CG [20 (22.5%) vs 13 (10.9%), P = .034]. There was no significant difference in the changes of endocrine and exocrine function between the 2 groups. In the RCJ group, 1 patient had a major abdominal hemorrhage after drainage surgery, and an emergency laparotomy was performed 2 days later, eventually the family of the patient request automatic discharge. This case was included in the death group.
Table 3.
Postoperative details and complications.
| Characteristics | CG (n = 119) | RCJ (n = 89) | P |
| Recurrence (%) | 9 (7.5%) | 10 (11.2%) | .467 |
| Overall complication (%) | 13 (10.9%) | 20 (22.5%) | .034 |
| Reoperation (%) | 8 (6.7%) | 8 (9.0%) | .604 |
| Worsening endocrine insufficiency (%) | 22 (18.5%) | 25 (28.1%) | .131 |
| Worsening exocrine insufficiency (%) | 24 (21.2%) | 16 (18.0%) | .726 |
3.4. Risk factors for recurrence and complications
In this study, there were 19 cases of recurrence. A detailed comparison between the recurrence group and the non-recurrence group is shown in Table 4. We performed a univariate analysis of risk factors for recurrence and complications after internal drainage, including age, BMI, initial onset time, size of the cyst, etc. Details are shown in Table 4 and Table 6. The results showed that the recurrence of pseudocysts was significantly associated with cyst location, size of the cyst, and amount of cyst fluid (all P < .05). The results of logistic regression analysis showed that as the size of the cyst increased, the possibility of recurrence decreased after internal drainage of the pancreatic cyst. The recurrent of PPC was higher when the severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) episode times ≥2 and the PPC in the head and neck. SAP times ≥ 2 were independent risk factors for recurrence after PPC internal drainage (OR 2.760, 95%CI 1.006∼7.571, P = .049). As shown in the Table 5.
Table 4.
Univariate analysis of risk factors for recurrence after internal drainage.
| Items | Recurrence (n = 19) | Non-recurrence (n = 189) | Statistic | P |
| Age (years) | 47.9 ± 13.5 | 46.8 ± 13.2 | t = 0.334 | .739 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.4 ± 2.8 | 21.8 ± 2.9 | t = 0.596 | .552 |
| Smoking (%) | 11 (57.9%) | 99 (52.4%) | χ2 = 0.211 | .810 |
| Drinking (%) | 8 (42.1%) | 64 (33.9%) | χ2 = 0.518 | .461 |
| Initial onset time (m) | 3 (1–36) | 4 (0.5–120) | U = 1460.00 | .177 |
| Multiple cysts (%) | 6 (31.6%) | 73 (38.6%) | χ2 = 0.364 | .627 |
| Portal hypertension (%) | 8 (42.1%) | 82 (43.4%) | χ2 = 0.012 | 1.000 |
| SAP times (≥2) (%) | 12 (63.2%) | 77 (40.7%) | χ2 = 3.544 | .087 |
| Cyst location (%) | χ2 = 6.661 | .013 | ||
| pancreatic head and neck | 12 (63.2%) | 63 (33.3%) | ||
| pancreatic body and tail | 7 (36.8%) | 126 (66.7%) | ||
| Operation time (minutes) | 120 (60∼210) | 120 (60∼180) | U = 1933.50 | .550 |
| Estimated blood loss (ml) | 50 (15∼150) | 50 (10∼800) | U = 1478.00 | .190 |
| Preoperative puncture drainage (%) | 2 (10.5%) | 46 (24.3%) | χ2 = 1.855 | .255 |
| Anastomotic methods (%) | χ2 = 0.828 | .467 | ||
| CG | 9 (47.4%) | 110 (58, 2%) | ||
| RCJ | 10 (52.6%) | 79 (41.8%) | ||
| Size of the cyst (cm) | 8.1 ± 2.9 | 10.6 ± 4.2 | t = 2.507 | .013 |
| Amount of cyst fluid (ml) | 300 (50∼1000) | 500 (30∼2300) | U = 1121.50 | .007 |
| Amount of necrotic tissue (g) | 50 (0–300) | 60 (0–1000) | U = 1648.50 | .555 |
BMI = Body Mass Index, SAP = severe acute pancreatitis.
Table 6.
Univariate analysis of risk factors for postoperative complications of internal drainage.
| Items | Complication group (n = 33) | Non-complication group (n = 175) | P | |
| Age (years) | 50.2 ± 13.1 | 46.3 ± 13.1 | t = −1.551 | .122 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.8 ± 3.1 | 21.8 ± 2.9 | t = 0.074 | .127 |
| Smoking (%) | 18 (54.5%) | 92 (52.6%) | χ2 = 0.043 | .852 |
| Drinking (%) | 13 (39.4%) | 59 (33.7%) | χ2 = 0.396 | .553 |
| Initial onset time (m) (%) | 3 (1–36) | 5 (0.5–120) | U = 1947.50 | .012 |
| Multiple cysts (%) | 15 (45.5%) | 64 (36.6%) | χ2 = 0.930 | .336 |
| Portal hypertension (%) | 14 (42.4%) | 76 (43.4%) | χ2 = 0.011 | 1.000 |
| SAP times (≥2) (%) | 18 (54.5%) | 71 (40.6%) | χ2 = 2.215 | .179 |
| Cyst location (%) | χ2 = 2.627 | .117 | ||
| pancreatic head and neck | 16 (48.5%) | 59 (33.7%) | ||
| pancreatic body and tail | 17 (51.5%) | 116 (66.3%) | ||
| Operation time (minutes) | 120 (60∼210) | 120 (60∼180) | U = 3325.00 | .629 |
| Estimated blood loss (ml) | 60 (15∼200) | 50 (10∼800) | U = 3036.00 | .135 |
| Preoperative puncture drainage (%) | 5 (15.2%) | 43 (24.6%) | χ2 = 1.388 | .270 |
| Anastomotic methods (%) | 2 = 5.087 | .034 | ||
| CG | 13 (39.4%) | 106 (60.6%) | ||
| RCJ | 20 (60.6%) | 69 (39.4%) | ||
| Size of the cyst (cm) | 8 ± 2.4 | 10.9 ± 4.3 | t = 3.698 | <.01 |
| Amount of cyst fluid (ml) | 350 (50∼1000) | 500 (30∼2300) | U = 1768.50 | <.01 |
| Amount of necrotic tissue (g) | 50 (0–300) | 60 (0–1000) | U = 2820.50 | .832 |
BMI = Body Mass Index, SAP = severe acute pancreatitis.
Table 5.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of risk factors associated with risk factors for recurrence after internal drainage.
| Items | Odds ratio | 95% CI | P |
| SAP times (≥2) | 2.760 | 1.006∼7.571 | .049 |
| PPC of the head and neck | 2.488 | 0.850∼7.284 | .096 |
| Size of the cyst (cm) | 0.933 | 0.666∼1.305 | .684 |
| Amount of cyst fluid | 0.999 | 0.995∼1.003 | .618 |
PPC = pancreatic pseudocyst, SAP = severe acute pancreatitis.
In this study, a total of 33 patients developed complications. A detailed comparison between the complication group and the non-complication group is shown in Table 6. Similarly, indicators with P < .1, initial onset time, anastomotic methods (converted to “RCJ”), size of the cyst and amount of cyst fluid, were included in logistic regression analysis, as shown in Table 7. The results showed that the shorter the course of pancreatitis, the greater the risk of complications after internal drainage of PPC (OR: 0.922, 95% CI: 0.855–0.994, P = .035). RCJ was associated with a higher risk of complications than CG (OR: 2.319, 95% CI: 1.033–5.204, P = .041). Short course of pancreatitis and RCJ were independent risk factors for complications after PPC.
Table 7.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of risk factors associated with risk factors for postoperative internal drainage.
| Items | Odds ratio | 95% CI | P |
| Initial onset time | 0.922 | 0.855–0.994 | .035 |
| RCJ | 2.319 | 1.033–5.204 | .041 |
| Size of the cyst | 0.815 | 0.614–1.082 | .157 |
| Amount of cyst fluid | 1.000 | 0.996–1.003 | .789 |
4. Discussion
Various reasons can lead to pancreatic duct discontinuity and pancreatic juice's leak into the abdominal cavity, was considered a main pathogenesis of pancreatic pseudocyst currently.[1–3] Pancreatic pseudocysts are gradually being recognized, and the number of patients is increasing. Although the clinical manifestations of pancreatic pseudocysts are diverse, the basic principle of treatment is mainly to solve abnormal drainage of pancreatic juice. In more than 2 thirds of patients, pseudocysts spontaneously disappeared, so the first treatment option for this disease is conservative treatment based on observation and follow-up.[9,10] In another part of the patient, after long-term conservative treatment, the fistulas fail to close, or even accompanied by bleeding, infection, digestive tract obstruction, pancreatic portal hypertension and other complications, and require endoscopic or surgical treatment. Currently, no international guidelines or consensus treatment method was proposed and it is often difficult and unclear to choose operative technique.[11] There is basically no relevant report on the comparison of internal drainage methods until now.
Percutaneous puncture drainage was usually performed under image guidance, ultrasound and CT guidance are most commonly used. Percutaneous drainage has been widely used because of its advantages of simple operation, small trauma and low price.[10,12–14] On the other hand, because percutaneous drainage is prone to cause complications such as secondary infection, bleeding, catheter blockage, and pancreatic cutaneous fistula, it should be carefully selected in clinical work.[14–16] In this study, a total of 48 patients underwent percutaneous drainage before internal drainage, all treatment failure due to poor drainage. Moreover, percutaneous puncture had no significant effect on PPC recurrence and complications. We consider that the main factor influencing the puncture drainage is the pseudocyst contains unequal amounts of necrotic tissue, which often block the drainage tube and cause drainage failure. In this study, 1 patient who recurrence PPC after RCJ, and underwent percutaneous drainage under ultrasound guidance. After 1 week, the drainage fluid gradually disappeared. Therefore, the pseudocysts that do not contain necrotic tissue, such as traumatic or iatrogenic pseudocysts, or patients who cannot undergo surgery, percutaneous drainage can be considered.
Nowadays, endoscopic treatment of PPC is the most heated topic of discussion.[17–19] Patients with main pancreatic duct lesions can be treated with implantation pancreatic duct stents via endoscopic to treat PPC, but the target population is limited. At the same time, endoscopic treatment of PPC has the disadvantages of high requirements for cyst location and high long-term recurrence rate. Studies have shown that endoscopic internal drainage must meet the distance between the cyst and the intestinal wall or stomach wall is less than 1 cm.[20] Felix et al[11] retrospectively analyze 51 patients who underwent endoscopic drainage for PPC, long-term follow-up showed a quarter of the patients developed recurrent PPC. In general, endoscopically assisted PPC has an obvious advantage and has been regarded as the first choice for the treatment of PPC. However, before the selection, the optimal treatment plan should be customized according to the specific condition of the patient.
In 1937, some scholars first proposed the fistulojejunostomy procedure for treat PPC. Including a tract formed by fibrous tissue around the drainage tube and the small intestine.[21] Pancreaticojejunostomy and pancreaticogastric anastomosis are also described. Murage et al[22] evaluating 76 patients who underwent either distal pancreatectomy (DP) or internal drainage procedures including RCJ. Although the short-term cure rate of DP surgery is relatively high, compared with RCJ, its operation time increased by an average of 1 hour, intraoperative estimated bleeding was about 3 times than RCJ, and postoperative blood glucose levels deteriorated severely. Therefore, DP is often regarded as a treatment option after failure of internal drainage. In our study, a total of 6 recurrence patients underwent DP due to recurrence of pseudocyst with pancreatic portal hypertension. In the long-term efficacy of treatment of PPC, especially for the protection of pancreatic endocrine function, internal drainage appears to be more meaningful. Vikrom et al[23] had reached a similar conclusion. Pearson et al [6] reported a series of 7 patients undergoing RCJ with no evidence of recurrent pancreatitis or exocrine insufficiency, though half the cohort required antidiabetic medications for endocrine insufficiency. It may be mainly because SAP causes necrosis of pancreatic tissue, which in turn leads to impaired pancreatic endocrine and exocrine function. About 20% of patients in this study have the situation above, which is much lower than the distal pancreatectomy.[23] Moreover, our research shows that there is no difference in the effects of the 2 internal drainage methods on pancreatic endocrine and exocrine function.
This study showed that there were no significant differences in recurrence rates, reoperation rates. And the cure rate of the 2 groups was as following: for CG 92.5% and for RCJ 87.6%. It is basically consistent with past literature reports.[22] But on the contrary, the overall complication rate of RCJ was higher than CG group. Regression analysis showed that the incidence of complications was negatively correlated with the length of disease and the size of the cyst. Our experience suggests that drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts within a short period of time may result in recurrence or complications, due to immature pancreatic necrosis, pancreatic fistula, and instability of the cystic wall. Comparing with RCJ, CG has a larger gastric drainage opening, which can remove necrotic tissue better and place the gastric tube in the cyst to achieve a better drainage. Moreover, gastric acid action on the capsule wall is beneficial to hemostasis and inhibition of pancreatic secretion; CG can also be placed in the cyst cavity through a gastric tube for adequate drainage. On the other hand, RCJ has 2 anastomoses, and the risk of related complications is also increased. Of course, there are many other factors that may influence the results, such as the etiology of PPC. PPC caused by chronic pancreatitis is easy to relapse, It may be associated with chronic fibrosis of the main or branch pancreatic duct and continuous abnormal drainage of pancreatic fluid.[24] The PPC caused by pancreatic surgery was relatively clear and contained little necrotic tissue. The severity of pancreatitis may also affect the prognosis of PPC, but we didn’t compare this in our study. Similarly, different types of PPC may also affect the treatment mode and efficacy of PPC. Gang Pan et al[3] developed a new classification system for pancreatic pseudocysts based on the anatomical location and clinical manifestations of the pseudocyst as well as the relationship between the pseudocyst and the pancreatic duct. This classification system can guide the selection of optimal treatment for a pancreatic pseudocyst.
The other shortcoming of this study is there is no clear standard in the choice of patient's surgical approach, which is determined by the surgeon. Moreover, it is a single-center study, and there may be selection bias in patient inclusion. The surgeon's experience plays a large role in the choice of surgical approach. This study is a retrospective study, some factors may be subjective. Further research is needed to determine whether additional clinical or imaging predictive features can be used to identify subsets of patients, who may benefit from 1 procedure over the other. And explore the best time for surgical intervention in PPC.
5. Conclusions
We retrospectively analyzed data on internal drainage in a single center PPC patient, the results showed that both CG and RCJ are safe and effective in the treatment of PPC. There was no significant difference in cure rate, reoperation rate, and mortality between CG and RCJ. The operative time, estimated intraoperative blood loss, install the number of drainage tubes and total expenses in CG group was lower than that in RCJ group. Number of episodes of SAP (≥2) is an independent risk factor for the recurrence of PPC. Short course of pancreatitis and RCJ were independent risk factors for complications after PPC. Therefore, we recommend that when treat PPC clinically, try to treat it conservatively for a longer period of time. When surgical intervention is needed, CG is the first choice.
Author contributions
Data curation: Jun Ye, Shan Lu, Dujiang Yang.
Formal analysis: Jun Ye, Yi Zhang, Lan Wang.
Funding acquisition: Huimin Lu, and Weiming Hu.
Methodology: Huimin Lu, Dujiang Yang.
Project administration: Weiming Hu.
Software: Jun Ye, Shan Lu, Lan Wang.
Supervision: Weiming Hu.
Validation: Huimin Lu, Dujiang Yang.
Visualization: Jun Ye, Shan Lu.
Writing – original draft: Jun Ye, Lan Wang, Huimin Lu.
Writing – review & editing: Jun Ye, Weiming Hu.
Footnotes
Abbreviations: BMI = body mass index, CT = computerized tomography, DP = distal pancreatectomy, PPC = pancreatic pseudocyst, SAP = severe acute pancreatitis.
How to cite this article: Ye J, Wang L, Lu S, Yang D, Hu W, Lu H, Zhang Y. Clinical study on cystogastrostomy and Roux-en-Y-type cystojejunostomy in the treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst: a single-center experience. Medicine. 2021;100:10(e25029).
The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose.
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
- [1].Banks Peter A, Bollen Thomas L, Dervenis Christos, et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis--2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 2013;62:102–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Bradley Edward L, III. A clinically based classification system for acute pancreatitis. Summary of the international symposium on acute pancreatitis. Arch Surg 1993;128:586–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Pan G, Wan MH, Xie KL, et al. Classification and management of pancreatic pseudocysts. Medicine 2015;94:960–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [4].Marino Katy A, Hendrick Leah E, Behrman Stephen W. Surgical management of complicated pancreatic pseudocysts after acute pancreatitis. Am J Surg 2016;211:109–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Parks RW, Tzovaras G, Diamond T, et al. Management of pancreatic pseudocysts. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2000;82:383–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Pearson Erik G, Scaife Courtney L, Mulvihill Sean J, et al. Roux-en-Y drainage of a pancreatic fistula for disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome after acute necrotizing pancreatitis. HPB 2012;14:26–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Simonetto DA, Liu M, Kamath PS. Portal hypertension and related complications: diagnosis and management. Mayo Clin Proc 2019;94:714–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Xie CL, Wu CQ, Chen Y, et al. Sinistral portal hypertension in acute pancreatitis: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Pancreas 2019;48:187–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Paloyan D, Simonowitz D, Blackstone M. Pancreatic fistula: management guided by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Arch Surg 1977;112:1139–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Howard Thomas J, Stonerock Charles E, Sarkar Jyoti, et al. Contemporary treatment strategies for external pancreatic fistulas. Surgery 1998;124:627–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Rückert F, Lietzmann A, Wilhelm Torsten J, et al. Long-term results after endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: a single-center experience. Pancreatology 2017;17:555–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Zerem E, Imamović G, Omerović S, et al. Percutaneous treatment for symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts: long-term results in a single center. Eur J Intern Med 2010;21:393–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Maher MM, Lucey BC, Gervais DA, et al. Acute pancreatitis: the role of imaging and interventional radiology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2004;27:208–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Zerem E, Hauser G, Loga-Zec S, et al. Minimally invasive treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:6850–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Heider R, Meyer Anthony A, Galanko Joseph A, et al. Percutaneous drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts is associated with a higher failure rate than surgical treatment in unselected patients. Ann Surg 1999;229:781–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Morton John M, Brown Alphonso, Galanko Joseph A, et al. A national comparison of surgical versus percutaneous drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: 1997–2001. J Gastrointest Surg 2005;9:15–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [17].Kumtaa Nikhil A, Tybergb Amy, Bhagatb Vicky H, et al. EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections using lumen apposing metal stents: An international, multicenter experience. Digestive Liver Dis 2019;51:1557–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [18].Farias Galileu FA, Bernardo Wanderley M, Moura Diogo TH, et al. Endoscopic versus surgical treatment for pancreatic pseudocysts: systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 2019;98:e14255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [19].Lopes CV, Pesenti C, Bories E, et al. Endoscopic-ultrasound-guided endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts and abscesses. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007;42:524–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Smits Marianne E, Rauws Erik AJ, Tytgat Guido NJ, et al. The efficacy of endoscopic treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1995;42:202–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Shanahan TH. Cure of pancreatic fistula by pancreaticojejunostomy. Am J Surg 1954;88:516–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Murage KP, Ball CG, Zyromski NJ, et al. Clinical framework to guide operative decision making in disconnected left pancreatic remnant (DLPR) following acute or chronic pancreatitis. Surgery 2010;148:847–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].Dhar Vikrom K, Sutton Jeffrey M, Xia Brent T, et al. Fistulojejunostomy versus distal pancreatectomy for the management of the disconnected pancreas remnant following necrotizing pancreatitis. J Gastrointest Surg 2017;21:1121–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [24].Habashi S, Draganov PV. Pancreatic pseudocyst. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:38–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]