Retrospective Comparative Analysis of POPF Using Fistula Risk Score According to Pancreaticoenterostomy Method

IF 0.2 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY International surgery Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.9738/intsurg-d-20-00033.1
Seungmin Lee, K. Paik
{"title":"Retrospective Comparative Analysis of POPF Using Fistula Risk Score According to Pancreaticoenterostomy Method","authors":"Seungmin Lee, K. Paik","doi":"10.9738/intsurg-d-20-00033.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n The aim of this study is to examine whether pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) or pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) is the better reconstructive method to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) according to the fistula risk.\n \n \n \n An institutional database was reviewed for patients undergoing PD between January 2008 and August 2019. A total of 159 patients were stratified into 4 groups according to the Clinical Risk Score-Pancreatic Fistula. POPF according to 4 risk groups was compared between PJ and PG.\n \n \n \n Of the 159 patients, 82 underwent PG (51.6%) and 77 underwent PJ (48.4%) reconstruction. POPF rate was 17.1% (n = 14) in the PG group and 12.9% (n = 10) in the PJ group (P = 0.51). POPF rates were not different in intermediate, low, and negligible risks between 2 reconstructive methods. In the high-risk group (n = 47), there were 4 POPFs (22.2%) in PJ group and 9 (31.0%) in the PG group, respectively (P = 0.74).\n \n \n \n In PD, there was no superior method of reconstruction with regard to POPF, even in high-risk glands.\n","PeriodicalId":14474,"journal":{"name":"International surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9738/intsurg-d-20-00033.1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine whether pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) or pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) is the better reconstructive method to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) according to the fistula risk. An institutional database was reviewed for patients undergoing PD between January 2008 and August 2019. A total of 159 patients were stratified into 4 groups according to the Clinical Risk Score-Pancreatic Fistula. POPF according to 4 risk groups was compared between PJ and PG. Of the 159 patients, 82 underwent PG (51.6%) and 77 underwent PJ (48.4%) reconstruction. POPF rate was 17.1% (n = 14) in the PG group and 12.9% (n = 10) in the PJ group (P = 0.51). POPF rates were not different in intermediate, low, and negligible risks between 2 reconstructive methods. In the high-risk group (n = 47), there were 4 POPFs (22.2%) in PJ group and 9 (31.0%) in the PG group, respectively (P = 0.74). In PD, there was no superior method of reconstruction with regard to POPF, even in high-risk glands.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据胰肠造口术方法应用瘘管风险评分对POPF的回顾性比较分析
本研究的目的是根据胰十二指肠切除术(PD)术后胰瘘的风险,探讨胰胃吻合术(PG)或胰空肠吻合术(PJ)是减少胰瘘(POPF)的较好重建方法。对2008年1月至2019年8月期间接受PD治疗的患者的机构数据库进行了审查。根据临床风险评分-胰瘘将159例患者分为4组。比较4个危险组PJ与PG的POPF, 159例患者中,PG重建82例(51.6%),PJ重建77例(48.4%)。PG组的POPF率为17.1% (n = 14), PJ组为12.9% (n = 10) (P = 0.51)。两种重建方法的POPF率在中、低和可忽略风险方面没有差异。高危组(n = 47)中,PJ组出现4例(22.2%)popf, PG组出现9例(31.0%),差异有统计学意义(P = 0.74)。在PD中,即使在高危腺体中,也没有更好的重建POPF的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International surgery
International surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Surgery is the Official Journal of the International College of Surgeons. International Surgery has been published since 1938 and has an important position in the global scientific and medical publishing field. The Journal publishes only open access manuscripts. Advantages and benefits of open access publishing in International Surgery include: -worldwide internet transmission -prompt peer reviews -timely publishing following peer review approved manuscripts -even more timely worldwide transmissions of unedited peer review approved manuscripts (“online first”) prior to having copy edited manuscripts formally published. Non-approved peer reviewed manuscript authors have the opportunity to update and improve manuscripts prior to again submitting for peer review.
期刊最新文献
Traumatic Pulmonary Herniation: A Conservative Approach Considerations for Iliac Vein Repair in the Setting of Urologic Procedures Abscess formation of abdominal wall mimicking lymphoma due to Morganella morganii infection in a prepubescent children Application of Kegel Motion Combined with Warming Acupuncture at the Eight Acupuncture Points in Patients with Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy A 270° Retention of Spinal Structure in the Treatment of Thoracic and Lumbar Tuberculosis via Posterior-Only Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1