The Value of Drains as a Fistula Mitigation Strategy for Pancreatoduodenectomy: Something for Everyone? Results of a Randomized Prospective Multi-institutional Study

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 21-31

  McMillan, Matthew T ^a   Fisher, William E ^b   Van Buren, George ^b   McElhany, Amy ^b   Bloomston, Mark ^c   Hughes, Steven J ^d   Winter, Jordan ^e   Behrman, Stephen W ^f   Zyromski, Nicholas J ^g   Velanovich, Vic ^h   Brown, Kimberly ⁱ   Morgan, Katherine A ^j   Vollmer, Charles ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^g INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

ⁱ University of Texas Medical Branch School of Medicine   (United States)

^j MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Fistula Risk Score; Intraoperative drain; Pancreatic fistula; Pancreatoduodenectomy; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AGED; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRAINAGE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PANCREATIC FISTULA; PANCREATICODUODENECTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK FACTOR;

ADULT; AGED; DRAINAGE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PANCREATIC FISTULA; PANCREATICODUODENECTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84920626119     PISSN: 1091255X     EISSN: 18734626     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-014-2640-z     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Pratt, W.B., et al., Clinical and economic validation of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) classification scheme. Ann Surg, 2007. 245(3): p. 443–51.
2. van Berge Henegouwen, M.I., et al., Incidence, risk factors, and treatment of pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy: drainage versus resection of the pancreatic remnant. J Am Coll Surg, 1997. 185(1): p. 18–24.
3. Gouma, D.J., et al., Rates of complications and death after pancreaticoduodenectomy: risk factors and the impact of hospital volume. Ann Surg, 2000. 232(6): p. 786–95.
4. Callery, M.P., W.B. Pratt, and C.M. Vollmer, Jr., Prevention and management of pancreatic fistula. J Gastrointest Surg, 2009. 13(1): p. 163–73.
5. Pratt, W., et al., Postoperative pancreatic fistulas are not equivalent after proximal, distal, and central pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg, 2006. 10(9): p. 1264–78; discussion 1278–9.
6. Vollmer, C.M., Jr., et al., A root-cause analysis of mortality following major pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg, 2012. 16(1): p. 89–102; discussion 102–3.
7. Sachs, T.E., et al., The pancreaticojejunal anastomotic stent: friend or foe? Surgery, 2013. 153(5): p. 651–62.
8. Biehl, T. and L.W. Traverso, Is stenting necessary for a successful pancreatic anastomosis? Am J Surg, 1992. 163(5): p. 530–2.
9. Poon, R.T., et al., External drainage of pancreatic duct with a stent to reduce leakage rate of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg, 2007. 246(3): p. 425–33; discussion 433–5.
10. Pessaux, P., et al., External pancreatic duct stent decreases pancreatic fistula rate after pancreaticoduodenectomy: prospective multicenter randomized trial. Ann Surg, 2011. 253(5): p. 879–85.
11. Winter, J.M., et al., Does pancreatic duct stenting decrease the rate of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized trial. J Gastrointest Surg, 2006. 10(9): p. 1280–90; discussion 1290.
12. Vanounou, T., et al., Selective administration of prophylactic octreotide during pancreaticoduodenectomy: a clinical and cost-benefit analysis in low- and high-risk glands. J Am Coll Surg, 2007. 205(4): p. 546–57.
13. Buchler, M., et al., Role of octreotide in the prevention of postoperative complications following pancreatic resection. Am J Surg, 1992. 163(1): p. 125–30; discussion 130–1.
14. Pederzoli, P., et al., Efficacy of octreotide in the prevention of complications of elective pancreatic surgery. Italian Study Group. Br J Surg, 1994. 81(2): p. 265–9.
15. Rosenberg, L., P. MacNeil, and L. Turcotte, Economic evaluation of the use of octreotide for prevention of complications following pancreatic resection. J Gastrointest Surg, 1999. 3(3): p. 225–32.
16. Lowy, A.M., et al., Prospective, randomized trial of octreotide to prevent pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignant disease. Ann Surg, 1997. 226(5): p. 632–41.
17. Sarr, M.G. and G. Pancreatic Surgery, The potent somatostatin analogue vapreotide does not decrease pancreas-specific complications after elective pancreatectomy: a prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Am Coll Surg, 2003. 196(4): p. 556–64; discussion 564–5; author reply 565.
18. Ochiai, T., et al., Application of polyethylene glycolic acid felt with fibrin sealant to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula in pancreatic surgery. J Gastrointest Surg, 2010. 14(5): p. 884–90.
19. Lillemoe, K.D., et al., Does fibrin glue sealant decrease the rate of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized trial. J Gastrointest Surg, 2004. 8(7): p. 766–72; discussion 772–4.
20. Suc, B., et al., Temporary fibrin glue occlusion of the main pancreatic duct in the prevention of intra-abdominal complications after pancreatic resection: prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg, 2003. 237(1): p. 57–65.
21. Simo, K.A., et al., Hemostatic Agents in Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery: A Review of the Literature and Critical Evaluation of a Novel Carrier-Bound Fibrin Sealant (TachoSil). ISRN Surg, 2012. 2012: p. 729086.
22. Iannitti, D.A., et al., Use of the round ligament of the liver to decrease pancreatic fistulas: a novel technique. J Am Coll Surg, 2006. 203(6): p. 857–64.
23. Hassenpflug, M., et al., Decrease in clinically relevant pancreatic fistula by coverage of the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy. Surgery, 2012. 152(3 Suppl 1): p. S164-71.
24. Levy, M., Intraperitoneal drainage. Am J Surg, 1984. 147(3): p. 309–14.
25. Van Buren, G., 2nd, et al., A randomized prospective multicenter trial of pancreaticoduodenectomy with and without routine intraperitoneal drainage. Ann Surg, 2014. 259(4): p. 605–12.
26. Jeekel, J., No abdominal drainage after Whipple's procedure. Br J Surg, 1992. 79(2): p. 182.
27. Heslin, M.J., et al., Is intra-abdominal drainage necessary after pancreaticoduodenectomy? J Gastrointest Surg, 1998. 2(4): p. 373–8.
28. Conlon, K.C., et al., Prospective randomized clinical trial of the value of intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatic resection. Ann Surg, 2001. 234(4): p. 487–93; discussion 493–4.
29. Fisher, W.E., et al., Pancreatic resection without routine intraperitoneal drainage. HPB (Oxford), 2011. 13(7): p. 503–10.
30. van der Wilt, A.A., et al., To drain or not to drain: a cumulative meta-analysis of the use of routine abdominal drains after pancreatic resection. HPB (Oxford), 2013. 15(5): p. 337–44.
31. Mehta, V.V., et al., Is it time to abandon routine operative drain use? A single institution assessment of 709 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. J Am Coll Surg, 2013. 216(4): p. 635–42; discussion 642–4.
32. Correa-Gallego, C., et al., Operative drainage following pancreatic resection: analysis of 1122 patients resected over 5 years at a single institution. Ann Surg, 2013. 258(6): p. 1051–8.
33. Veillette, G., et al., Implications and management of pancreatic fistulas following pancreaticoduodenectomy: the Massachusetts General Hospital experience. Arch Surg, 2008. 143(5): p. 476–81.
34. Molinari, E., et al., Amylase value in drains after pancreatic resection as predictive factor of postoperative pancreatic fistula: results of a prospective study in 137 patients. Ann Surg, 2007. 246(2): p. 281–7.
35. Bassi, C., et al., Pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatic resection. The importance of definitions. Dig Surg, 2004. 21(1): p. 54–9.
36. Bassi, C., et al., Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery, 2005. 138(1): p. 8–13.
37. Pratt, W.B., M.P. Callery, and C.M. Vollmer, Jr., Risk prediction for development of pancreatic fistula using the ISGPF classification scheme. World J Surg, 2008. 32(3): p. 419–28.
38. Callery, M.P., et al., A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg, 2013. 216(1): p. 1–14.
39. Miller, B.C., et al., A multi-institutional external validation of the fistula risk score for pancreatoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg, 2014. 18(1): p. 172–79; discussion 179–80.
40. Gurusamy, K.S., et al., Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2007(4): p. CD006004.
41. Karliczek, A., et al., Drainage or nondrainage in elective colorectal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis, 2006. 8(4): p. 259–65.
42. de Rougemont, O., et al., Abdominal drains in liver transplantation: useful tool or useless dogma? A matched case–control study. Liver Transpl, 2009. 15(1): p. 96–101.
43. Aldameh, A., J.L. McCall, and J.B. Koea, Is routine placement of surgical drains necessary after elective hepatectomy? Results from a single institution. J Gastrointest Surg, 2005. 9(5): p. 667–71.
44. Bassi, C., et al., Early versus late drain removal after standard pancreatic resections: results of a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg, 2010. 252(2): p. 207–14.
45. Nagakawa, Y., et al., Bacterial contamination in ascitic fluid is associated with the development of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Pancreas, 2013. 42(4): p. 701–6.
46. Strobel, O. and M.W. Buchler, Drainage after pancreaticoduodenectomy: controversy revitalized. Ann Surg, 2014. 259(4): p. 613–5.