Risk stratification of postoperative pancreatic fistula and other complications following pancreatoduodenectomy. How far are we? A scoping review.

Abstract

Purpose: Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging procedure which is associated with high morbidity rates. This study was performed to make an overview of risk factors included in risk stratification methods both logistic regression models and models based on artificial intelligence algorithms to predict postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and other complications following PD and to provide insight in the extent to which these tools were validated.

Methods: Five databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Calculators, equations, nomograms, and artificial intelligence models that addressed POPF and other complications were included. Only PD resections were considered eligible. There was no exclusion of the minimally invasive techniques reporting PD resections. All other pancreatic resections were excluded.

Results: 90 studies were included. Thirty-five studies were related to POPF, thirty-five studies were related to other complications following PD and twenty studies were related to artificial intelligence predication models after PD. Among the identified risk factors, the most used factors for POPF risk stratification were the main pancreatic duct diameter (MPD) (80%) followed by pancreatic texture (51%), whereas for other complications the most used factors were age (34%) and ASA score (29.4%). Only 26% of the evaluated risk stratification tools for POPF and other complications were externally validated. This percentage was even lower for the risk models using artificial intelligence which was 20%.

Conclusion: The MPD was the most used factor when stratifying the risk of POPF followed by pancreatic texture. Age and ASA score were the most used factors for the stratification of other complications. Insight in clinically relevant risk factors could help surgeons in adapting their surgical strategy and shared decision-making. This study revealed that the focus of research still lies on developing new risk models rather than model validation, hampering clinical implementation of these tools for decision support.