Nondilated Pancreatic Duct Research Articles

Rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography in groove pancreatitis with a nondilated pancreatic duct.

Rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography in groove pancreatitis with a nondilated pancreatic duct.

Efficacy of the 'Five-Needle' method for pancreatojejunostomy in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: an observational study.

The five-needle pancreato-intestinal anastomosis method is used in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). The aim of this study was to explore the clinical efficacy and adverse reactions of this new surgical method and to provide a scientific reference for promoting this new surgical method in the future. A single-centre observational study was conducted to evaluate the safety and practicality of the five-needle method for pancreatojejunostomy in LPD surgeries. The clinical data of 78 patients who were diagnosed with periampullary malignancies and underwent LPD were collected from the 1st of August 2020 to the 31st of June 2023 at Lanzhou University First Hospital. Forty-three patients were treated with the 'Five-Needle' method (test groups), and 35 patients were treated with the 'Duct-to-Mucosa' method (control group) for pancreatojejunostomy. These two methods are the most commonly used and highly preferred pancreatointestinal anastomosis methods worldwide. The primary outcome was pancreatic fistula, and the incidence of which was compared between the two groups. The incidence of pancreatic fistula in the five-needle method group and the duct-to-mucosa method group was not significantly different (25.6% vs. 28.6%, p=0.767). Additionally, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss (Z=-1.330, p=0.183), postoperative haemorrhage rates (p=0.998), length of postoperative hospital stay (Z=-0.714, p=0.475), bile leakage rate (p=0.745), or perioperative mortality rate (p=0.999). However, the operative time in the 'Five-Needle' method group was significantly shorter than that in the 'Duct-to-Mucosa' method group (270 ± 170 mins vs. 300 ± 210 mins, Z=-2.336, p=0.019). Further analysis revealed that in patients with pancreatic ducts smaller than 3 mm, the incidence of pancreatic fistula was lower for the 'Five-Needle' method than for the 'Duct-to-Mucosa' method (12.5% vs. 53.8%, p=0.007). The five-needle method is safe and efficient for pancreatojejunostomy in LPD, and is particularly suitable for anastomosis in nondilated pancreatic ducts. It is a promising, valuable, and recommendable surgical method worthy of wider adoption.

Application of Simplified Duct-to-Mucosa Pancreaticojejunostomy for Nondilated Pancreatic Duct in Laparoscopic Pancreatic Surgery.

The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of simplified duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy in a nondilated pancreatic duct in laparoscopic surgery. The data of 19 patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and 2 patients who underwent laparoscopic central pancreatectomy were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent pure laparoscopic surgery successfully with simplified duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy. The operation time of LPD was 365.11±41.56 minutes, the time of pancreaticojejunostomy was 28.39±12.58 minutes, and postoperative hospitalization time was 14.16±6.88 days on average. Postoperative complications occurred in 3 patients of LPD, including 2 cases of class B postoperative pancreatic fistula and 1 case of gastroparesis followed by gastrointestinal anastomotic perforation. The operative time of laparoscopic central pancreatectomy was 191.00±12.73 minutes, the time of pancreaticojejunostomy 36.00±5.66 minutes, and the postoperative hospitalization time 12.5±0.71 days on average. The described technique is a simple and safe reconstruction procedure and suitable for patients with nondilated pancreatic duct.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous in pancreas divisum with a nondilated pancreatic duct.

Pancreas divisum is the most common congenital malformation of the pancreas, in which a single pancreatic duct does not form in the 7th week of gestation. It usually causes no symptoms or complications, but a small percentage of persons with this malformation develop recurrent acute pancreatitis. Patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis may benefit from endoscopic sphincterotomy of the minor papilla to open up the outflow of the dorsal pancreatic duct [1] [2].

Improved Outcomes with Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Patients with Dilated Pancreatic Ducts: A Prospective Study

Introduction: Little is known about what predicts better outcomes for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). We hypothesized that MIPD patients with dilated pancreatic ducts have improved outcomes compared to OPD. Methods: All patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were prospectively followed over 47 months; perioperative and pathologic covariates and outcomes were compared. Ideal outcome (IO) was defined as: having no complications, postoperative length of stay < 7 days and negative margins on pathology. Patients with dilated ducts (≥3mm) who underwent MIPD were 1:3 propensity score matched to patients with dilated ducts who underwent OPD. Likewise, patients with non-dilated ducts (<3mm) who underwent MIPD were 1:3 propensity score matched to patients with non-dilated ducts who underwent OPD, and outcomes compared. Results: 371 patients underwent PD– 74 (19.9%) MIPD and 297 (80.1%) OPD. Overall, MIPD patients had significantly less intraoperative blood loss. After 1:3 propensity score matching, MIPD patients with dilated pancreatic ducts (n=45) had significantly lower overall complication and 90-day readmission rates compared to matched OPD patients (n=135) with dilated ducts. MIPD patients with dilated duct were more likely to have IO than patients with OPD (29% vs 15%, p=0.035). There were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes among matched patients with non-dilated pancreatic ducts who underwent MIPD (n=29) compared to matched patients undergoing OPD (n=87) with non-dilated ducts. Conclusions: MIPD is safe with comparable outcomes to OPD. Patients with pancreatic ducts ≥3mm derive the most benefit from MIPD: fewer complications, lower readmission rates and higher likelihood of ideal outcome.

Improved outcomes with minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with dilated pancreatic ducts: a prospective study.

BackgroundLittle is known about what factors predict better outcomes for patients who undergo minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). We hypothesized that patients with dilated pancreatic ducts have improved postoperative outcomes with MIPD compared to OPD.MethodsAll patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were prospectively followed over a time period of 47 months, and perioperative and pathologic covariates and outcomes were compared. Ideal outcome after PD was defined as follows: (1) no complications, (2) postoperative length of stay < 7 days, and (3) negative (R0) margins on pathology. Patients with dilated pancreatic ducts (≥ 3 mm) who underwent MIPD were 1:3 propensity score-matched to patients with dilated ducts who underwent OPD and outcomes compared. Likewise, patients with non-dilated pancreatic ducts (< 3 mm) who underwent MIPD were 1:3 propensity score-matched to patients with non-dilated ducts who underwent OPD and outcomes were compared.Results371 patients underwent PD—74 (19.9%) MIPD and 297 (80.1%) underwent OPD. Overall, patients who underwent MIPD had significantly less intraoperative blood loss. After 1:3 propensity score matching, patients with dilated pancreatic ducts who underwent MIPD (n = 45) had significantly lower overall complication and 90-day readmission rates compared to matched OPD patients (n = 135) with dilated ducts. Patients with dilated duct who underwent MIPD were more likely to have an ideal outcome than patients with OPD (29 vs 15%, p = 0.035). There were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes among propensity score-matched patients with non-dilated pancreatic ducts who underwent MIPD (n = 29) compared to matched patients undergoing OPD (n = 87) with non-dilated ducts.ConclusionsMIPD is safe with comparable perioperative outcomes to OPD. Patients with pancreatic ducts ≥ 3 mm appear to derive the most benefit from MIPD in terms of fewer complications, lower readmission rates, and higher likelihood of ideal outcome.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08611-x.

Which is the best predictor of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy: drain fluid concentration or total amount of amylase?

AimDrain fluid amylase concentration (DFAC) has been reported as a predictor of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR‐POPF) after pancreatectomy. However, the clinical significance of measuring the total drain fluid amylase amount (DFAA) considering the daily drainage volume of CR‐POPF remains unclear.MethodsData from 216 consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) (n = 126) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) (n = 90) between August 2014 and November 2020 were reviewed. All drains were closed but not suctioned. DFAA was calculated by multiplying the DFAC and daily drainage fluid volume. DFAC and DFAA were recorded on d 1 and 3 after pancreatectomy. The cutoff value of CR‐POPF was determined using the receiver operating characteristic curve.ResultsCR‐POPF was found in 75 patients (35%) (PD: 30%, DP: 41%, P = .111); the mortality rate was zero. The cutoff value of DFAC‐day 1 was 1757 U/L (sensitivity [SE]: 84%, specificity [SP]: 62%, and accuracy [AC]: 69%). The cutoff value of DFAA‐day 1 was 139 U (SE: 71%, SP: 72%, and AC: 71%). The cutoff value of DFAC‐day 3 was 1044 U/L (SE: 73%, SP: 79%, and AC: 78%). The cutoff value of DFAA‐day 3 was 21 U (SE: 68%, SP: 72%, and AC: 70%). Multivariate analysis indicated that a nondilated pancreatic duct and high DFAC‐day 3 were independently associated with CR‐POPF after PD, indicating that a prolonged operative duration, massive blood loss, and high DFAC‐day 3 are independently associated with CR‐POPF after DP.ConclusionDFAC is more reliable than DFAA for predicting CR‐POPF after both PD and DP.

EUS-guided drainage for a non-dilated pancreatic duct using a re-puncture technique in a patient with stricture-related pancreatitis (with video).

Highlight EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage has emerged as an effective method for the treatment of post-pancreaticojejunostomy anastomotic stricture, but cases with non-dilated pancreatic duct usually represent a great challenge. Fujigaki and colleagues demonstrate the feasibility of EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage with the re-puncture technique in a case with non-dilated pancreatic duct.

Small-caliber plastic stent for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of a non-dilated pancreatic duct.

Small-caliber plastic stent for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of a non-dilated pancreatic duct.

Is age just a number or a serious consideration for outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy in a developing country?

Background: The effect of age on outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy has been reported inconsistently. The objective of our study was to review the impact of age on perioperative and oncological outcomes in patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Methods: All patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy from January 2014 to December 2018 at Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center were reviewed. Postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes were compared between patients with age ≤ 60 years (Group A) and age > 60 years (Group B). Results: A total of 161 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy during the study period including 117 (73%) in group A and 44 (27%) in group B. Mean age was 46±11 years in group A and 67±5 years in group B. Most common pathology was adenocarcinoma (81%), commonest site was periampullary (53%) and most common pancreatic reconstruction technique was pancreaticogastrostomy (68%). Patients in group B had significantly higher comorbidities including hypertension (p=0.00) and ischemic heart disease (p=0.030). There was no significant difference in morbidity (p=0.856), reoperation (p= 1.000) and 30-day readmission rate (p=0.097) betweenthe two groups. Similarly, there was no difference in disease free survival (p=0.957) and overall survival (p=0.070) in both groups. On multivariate analysis, soft pancreas (p=0.00) and non-dilated pancreatic duct (p=0.00) were associated with postoperative complications while ECOG performance status and ASA score did not show significant association. Conclusion: Pancreaticoduodenectomy can be performed in elderly patients with comparable morbidity and oncological outcomes as younger patients. Comorbid conditions remain higher in elderly patients and preoperative optimization can prevent worse postoperative outcomes.

Improved outcomes with minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with dilated pancreatic ducts: a prospective study

Background: We hypothesized that patients with dilated pancreatic ducts have improved postoperative outcomes with MIPD compared to OPD. Methods: All patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy between April 2016 and July 2019 were prospectively followed, and perioperative and pathologic variables were compared. Patients with dilated pancreatic ducts (≥3mm) who underwent MIPD (Robotic/ Laparoscopic) were propensity score matched to patients with dilated ducts who underwent OPD and outcomes compared. Likewise, patients with non-dilated pancreatic ducts (< 3mm) were similarly compared. The primary outcome was a composite measure termed the ideal outcome (IO) which required patients to achieve negative margins; experience no complications or readmission and be discharged within seven days. Results: 312 patients underwent PD- 51 (16.4%) MIPD and 212 (83.7%) OPD. Patients who underwent MIPD had significantly longer operative times, less intraoperative blood loss, and a lower rate of 90-day readmission. Patients with dilated pancreatic ducts who underwent MIPD (n=30) had significantly increased intraoperative times, less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative bleeding/anemia complications, lower overall complication rate, and were discharged from the hospital 3.5 days faster compared to matched OPD patients (n=90) with dilated ducts. MIPD in patients with dilated pancreatic ducts was independently associated with increased IO (OR= 3.04, p=0.021) (Table 3). Conclusion: Patients with pancreatic ducts ≥3mm appear to derive the most benefit from MIPD in terms of less complications and shorter hospital stay.

Bleeding from the pancreatic cut surface post pancreaticoduodenectomy: a review of a tertiary referral centre.

Haemorrhage from the pancreatic cut surface after pancreaticoduodenectomy is uncommon. The optimal treatment for post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH) from the pancreatic cut surface remains controversial. We performed a retrospective analysis including all patients who underwent a pancreatiocoduodenectomy between 2008 and 2018 at a single tertiary institution in Melbourne, Australia, to analyse the incidence, potential risk factors, treatment and outcomes of cut surface PPH. A total of 168 pancreaticoduodenectomies were performed during the study period with pancreaticogastrostomy being the most common method of reconstruction at our institution (84.5%). There were 12 instances of cut surface PPH (7.1%). The majority of cases of cut surface PPH occurred within 48 h following pancreaticoduodenectomy (67%) with 41.7% occurring in the first 24 h. All but one patient required surgical intervention but length of stay did not appear to be increased compared to those without cut surface PPH. There was a trend towards patients with cut surface PPH being more likely to have a non-dilated pancreatic duct (75% versus 49%; P = 0.079). No significant differences were noted between patient with and without cut surface PPH with regards to abnormalities in platelet counts (3.2% versus 0%; P = 0.529), international normalized ratio (4.5% versus 8.3%; P = 0.694) and prophylactic anticoagulant administration or continuing antiplatelet use (28.2 versus 16.7%; P = 0.630). We believe that an unobstructed pancreas, in combination with the acidic environment associated with a dunking pancreaticogastrostomy anastomosis, may predispose to bleeding from the cut surface of the pancreas.

Secretin Improves Visualization of Nondilated Pancreatic Ducts in Children Undergoing MRCP.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to assess whether secretin improves visualization of a nondilated pancreatic duct and whether it increases identification of variant duct anatomy on MRCP in pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This study is a delayed retrospective review of MRCP images that were prospectively obtained of 50 volunteers without a history of pancreatic disease who ranged in age from 6 to 15 years old. MRCP images (coronal 3D fast recovery fast spin-echo [FSE] and coronal single-shot FSE fat-saturated sequences) obtained before and after secretin administration were separated for review by three radiologists (reviewers 1-3). The reviewers were blinded to the purpose of the study and to secretin administration. Reviewers ranked subjective image quality (Likert scale, 1-5 points) and reported pancreaticobiliary duct anatomy and duct visibility (yes or no). Paired t tests were used for comparison of means, and the chi-square test or Fisher exact test was used for comparison of frequencies. Sensitivity and specificity of MRCP images obtained before secretin administration were judged against MRCP images obtained after secretin administration as the reference standard. RESULTS. The frequency of image quality scores of 4 or greater assigned to 3D MRCP images was statistically significantly greater after secretin administration for reviewer 2 (p < 0.0001) and reviewer 3 (p = 0.005) and approached statistical significance for reviewer 1 (p = 0.052). Mean number of visible pancreatic duct segments (head and uncinate, body, tail) was significantly greater on the MRCP images obtained after secretin administration than on those obtained before secretin administration for all reviewers (reviewer 1, 1.9 vs 1.3; reviewer 2, 1.9 vs 1.2; reviewer 3, 1.4 vs 0.8; all, p < 0.01). For all three reviewers, the sensitivity of MRCP images obtained before secretin administration was poor for variant pancreatic ductal anatomy (reviewer 1, 37.5%; reviewer 2, 50.0%; reviewer 3, 40.0%). CONCLUSION. Secretin administration improved subjective MRCP image quality, improved subjective visualization of the pancreatic duct, and provided greater sensitivity for anatomic variants such as pancreas divisum in a cohort of children with nondilated pancreatic ducts.

Improved outcomes with minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with dilated pancreatic ducts: A prospective study

Presenter: Sanket Srinivasa MD, PhD | Washington University, St. Louis Background: There is little known about what factors predict better outcomes for patients who undergo minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Identifying such characteristics may guide patient selection in MIPD. We hypothesized that patients with dilated pancreatic ducts have improved postoperative outcomes with MIPD compared to OPD. Methods: All patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy between April 2016 and July 2019 were prospectively followed, and perioperative and pathologic covariates and outcomes were compared. Patients with dilated pancreatic ducts (≥3mm) who underwent MIPD (Robotic/ Laparoscopic) were propensity score matched to patients with dilated ducts who underwent OPD and outcomes compared. Likewise, patients with non-dilated pancreatic ducts ( < 3mm) who underwent MIPD were 1:3 propensity score matched to patients with non-dilated ducts who underwent OPD and outcomes compared. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to control for potential confounders and the primary outcome was a composite measure termed the ideal outcome (IO) which required patients to achieve negative margins; experience no complications or readmission and be discharged within seven days. Results: 312 patients underwent PD– 51 (16.4%) MIPD and 212 (83.7%) OPD. Patients who underwent MIPD had significantly longer operative times, less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative urinary retention, and a lower rate of 90-day readmission. After 1:3 propensity score matching, patients with dilated pancreatic ducts who underwent MIPD (n=30) had significantly increased intraoperative times, less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative bleeding/anemia complications, lower overall complication rate, and were discharged from the hospital 3.5 days faster compared to matched OPD patients (n=90) with dilated ducts. Among propensity score matched patients with non-dilated pancreatic ducts, patients undergoing MIPD (n=21) had significantly less intraoperative blood loss compared to matched patients undergoing OPD (n=63) with non-dilated ducts, but there were no other significant differences in outcomes. In total, 39 (14.9%) patients had IO with OPD and 11 (21.6%) patients had IO with MIPD (p=0.276). With multivariate analysis, there was a significant interaction between operative approach (MIPD vs OPD) and pancreatic duct size (non-dilated [ < 3mm] vs dilated [≥ 3mm]) with respect to these variables’ association with IO (p=0.042). MIPD in patients with dilated pancreatic ducts was independently associated with increased IO (OR= 3.04, p=0.021) (Table 3). However, MIPD in patients with non-dilated pancreatic ducts was not associated with IO (OR=0.82, p=0.802). Conclusion: MIPD is safe with comparable perioperative and oncologic outcomes to OPD. Patients with pancreatic ducts ≥3mm appear to derive the most benefit from MIPD in terms of less complications and shorter hospital stay.

Pancreaticogastrostomy: A Safe Option in Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Head and Periampullary Neoplasms.

To determine the safety of pancreaticogastrostomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms in terms of surgical technique, pancreatic fistula rate, 30 days mortality and three years survival. Cohort study. Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan, from October 2014 to September 2017. Patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head and periampullary tumors were included. Patients having metastatic disease or involvement of celiac artery, hepatic artery or superior mesenteric artery on preoperative scans, complete encasement of portal vein and superior mesenteric vein (SMV) were excluded. Patients' characteristics including the demographics, surgical technique, postoperative pancreatic fistula, 30 days mortality and three years survival were recorded. Mean ± standard deviation was used for continuous variables while frequencies and percentages were used for categorical variables. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival as a function of time, and survival differences were analysed by either Log-Rank test or Tarone-Ware test. Statistical significance was defined as a two-tailed p-value 0.05. One hundred and one patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. Fifty-eight (57.4%) were males and 43 (42.4%) were females (n=43). Mean age was 51.5 ±14.17 years. The commonly found tumor was periampullary adenocarcinoma which was present in 49.5% (n=50) patients followed by pancreatic head adenocarcinoma which was present in 32.7% (n=33) patients and 17.8% (n=18) patients had other tumors. Most common pathological T-stage was T3 present in 47.5% (n=48) patients, followed by T2 found in 36.6% (n=37) patients and T1 stage was present in 15.8% (n=16) patients. 57.4% (n=58) patients had node positive disease. Pancreaticogastrostomy was done in 87.13% (n=88) patients, while pancreaticojejunostomy was done in 12.87% (n=13) patients. Recurrent disease was noticed in 11.9% (n=12) patients. Mean survival of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma was 787.04 ±81.89 days, which was comparatively less than periampullary adenocarcinoma, i.e. 983.10 ±52.27 days (p=0.08). Overall mean survival was 924 ±41.3 days. Patients with periampullary tumors had a better outcome than pancreatic head tumors in this series. Pancreaticogastrostomy can be a safe alternative to pancreaticojejunostomy, especially in patients having non-dilated pancreatic duct and soft pancreas.

Preoperative risk evaluation for pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Pancreatic fistula remains common, with limited ability to risk stratify patients preoperatively. The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for clinically-relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) that are routinely available in the preoperative setting. Preoperatively available variables for all pancreaticoduodenectomies from 2014-2017 were examined using a national clinical registry. The cohort was separated into risk factor identification and internal validation subgroups. Among 15 033 pancreaticoduodenectomies, the CR-POPF rate was 16.7%. CR-POPF was more likely in patients that were male (odds ratio [OR], 1.51), obese (body mass index [BMI] > 30, OR, 1.97), had minimal preoperative weight loss (OR, 1.25), had a nondilated pancreatic duct (OR, 1.81), did not have diabetes, (OR, 1.80), did not receive neoadjuvant therapy (OR, 1.78), had no evidence of biliary obstruction (OR, 1.18), or had nonadenocarcinoma pathology (OR, 1.96; all P < 0.01). Patients with three or fewer risk factors had a CR-POPF rate of 7.1%, while those with six or more risk factors had a CR-POPF rate of 26.3% (P < 0.001). Preoperative CR-POPF risk evaluation could be a useful tool in patient counseling and surgical planning, and risk may allow for more well-informed decisions regarding perioperative management, including enhanced recovery protocols and use of somatostatin analogs.

Efficacy of octreotide in the prevention of complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with soft pancreas and non-dilated pancreatic duct: A prospective randomized trial

BackgroundThe efficacy of octreotide to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is still controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of postoperative use of octreotide on the outcomes after PD. MethodsThis is a prospective randomized controlled trial for postoperative use of octreotide in patients undergoing PD. Patients with soft pancreas and pancreatic duct < 3 mm were randomized to 2 groups. Group I did not receive postoperative octreotide. Group II received postoperative octreotide. The primary end of the study is to compare the rate of POPF. ResultsA total of 104 patients were included in the study and were divided into two randomized groups. There were no significant difference in overall complications and its severity. POPF occurred in 11 patients (21.2%) in group I and 10 (19.2%) in group II, without statistical significance (P = 0.807). Also, there was no significant differences between both groups regarding the incidence of biliary leakage (P = 0.083), delayed gastric emptying (P = 0.472), and early postoperative mortality (P = 0.727). ConclusionsOctreotide did not reduce postoperative morbidities, reoperation and mortality rate. Also, it did not affect the incidence of POPF and its clinically relevant variants.

Risk of pancreatitis after pancreatic duct guidewire placement during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Background & aimsAdvanced techniques have been developed to overcome difficult cannulation cases in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Pancreatic duct guidewire placement method (PGW) is performed in difficult cannulation cases; it is possible that it places patients at risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). The mechanism of PEP is still unclear, but pancreatic duct pressure and injury of pancreatic duct are known causes of PEP. Therefore, we hypothesized a relationship between pancreatic duct diameter and PEP and predicted that PGW would increase the risk of PEP in patients with non-dilated pancreatic ducts. This study aimed to investigate whether PGW increased the risk of PEP in patients with pancreatic duct diameter ≤ 3 mm.MethodsWe analyzed 332 patients with pancreatic duct ≤ 3 mm who performed first time ERCP session. The primary endpoint was the rate of adverse event of PEP. We evaluated the risk of PEP in patients who had undergone PGW compared to those who had not, using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis.ResultsPGW was found to be an independent risk factor for PEP by univariate analysis (odds ratio [OR], 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–5.38; p = 0.03) after IPTW in patients with pancreatic duct diameter ≤ 3 mm. Adjusted for all covariates, PGW remained an independent risk factor for PEP (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.33–7.33; p = 0.01).ConclusionOur results indicate that PGW in patients with pancreatic duct diameter ≤ 3 mm increases the risk of PEP.

Successful EUS-guided nondilated pancreatic duct stent placementin patient with refractory pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Successful EUS-guided nondilated pancreatic duct stent placementin patient with refractory pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Imbedding pancreaticojejunostomy used in pure laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for nondilated pancreatic duct.

LPD has been cautiously regarded as feasible and safe for resection and reconstruction. However, anastomosis of the remnant pancreas is still thought to be a critical obstacle to the dissemination of LPD in general practice. This study presents a new technique of pancreaticojejunostomy for nondilated pancreatic duct and evaluates its safety and reliability. From July 2014 to June 2015, a total of 52 patients underwent LPD with the new technique. A modified technique of duct-to-mucosa PJ was performed with transpancreatic interlocking mattress sutures, named the imbedding duct-to-mucosa PJ. Then the morbidity and mortality was calculated. This technique was applied in 52 patients after LPD all with nondilated pancreatic duct (1-3mm). The mean operation time was 4.6h (range, 3.5-8.3h) and the median time for the anastomosis was 37min (range, 24-53min). Operative mortality was zero, and morbidity was 21.2% (n=11), including hemorrhage (n=3, 5.8%), biliary fistula (n=1, 1.9%), pulmonary infection (n=1, 1.9%), delayed gastric emptying (n=2, 3.8%), abdominal abscess caused by biliary fistula or PF formation (n=2, 3.8%), and POPF (n=2, 3.8%). Two patients developed a pancreatic fistula (one type A, one type B) classified according to the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula. The described technique is a simple and safe reconstruction procedure after LPD, especially for patients with nondilated pancreatic duct.