Alternative treatment of symptomatic pancreatic fistula

Continuous irrigation after pancreatectomy: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Prevention and management of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatic resections is still an unresolved issue. Continuous irrigation of the peripancreatic area is frequently used to treat necrotizing pancreatitis, but its use after elective pancreatic surgery is not well-known. With this systematic review, we sought to evaluate the current knowledge and expertise regarding the use of continuous irrigation in the surgical area to prevent or treat POPF after elective pancreatic resections.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, screening the databases of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid MEDLINE. Because of the heterogeneity of the included articles, a statistical inference could not be performed and the literature was reviewed only descriptively. The study was pre-registered online (OSF Registry).

RESULTS

Nine studies were included. Three studies provided data regarding the prophylactic use of continuous irrigation after distal and limited pancreatectomies. Here, patients after irrigation showed a lower rate of clinically relevant POPF, related complications, lengths of stay, and mortality. Six other papers reported the use of local lavage to treat clinically relevant POPF and subsequent fluid collections, with successful outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In the current literature, only a few publications are focused on the use of continuous irrigation after pancreatic resection to prevent or manage POPF. The included studies showed promising results, and this technique may be useful in patients at high risk of POPF. Further investigations and randomized trials are needed.

Management of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy

A postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the main complication after cephalic pancreaticoduodenectomy (CPD). Unlike its prevention, the curative management of POPFs has long been poorly codified. This review seeks best practices for managing POPFs after CPD. The diagnosis of a POPF is based on two signs: (i) an amylase level in drained fluid more than 3 times the upper limit of the blood amylase level; and (ii) an abnormal clinical course. In the standardised definition of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery, a purely biochemical fistula is no longer counted as a POPF and is treated by gradual withdrawal of the drain over at most 3 weeks. POPF risk can be scored using pre- and intraoperative clinical criteria, many of which are related to the quality of the pancreatic parenchyma and are common to several scoring systems. The prognostic value of these scores can be improved as early as Day 1 by amylase assays in blood and drained fluid. Recent literature, including in particular the Dutch randomised trial PORSCH, argues for early systematic detection of a POPF (periodic assays, CT-scan with injection indicated on standardised clinical and biological criteria plus an opinion from a pancreatic surgeon), for rapid minimally invasive treatment of collections (percutaneous drainage, antibiotic therapy indicated on standardised criteria) to forestall severe septic and/or haemorrhagic forms, and for the swift withdrawal of abdominal drains when the risk of a POPF is theoretically low and evolution is favourable. A haemorrhage occurring after Day 1 always requires CT angiography with arterial time and monitoring in intensive care. Minimally invasive treatment of a POPF (radiologically-guided percutaneous drainage or, more rarely, endoscopic drainage, arterial embolisation) should be preferred as first-line treatment. The addition of artificial nutrition (enteral via a nasogastric or nasojejunal tube, or parenteral) is most often useful. If minimally invasive treatment fails, then reintervention is indicated, preserving the remaining pancreas if possible, but the expected mortality is higher.

Completion pancreatectomy or a pancreas-preserving procedure during relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicentre cohort study and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the fact that primary percutaneous catheter drainage has become standard practice, some patients with pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy ultimately undergo a relaparotomy. The aim of this study was to compare completion pancreatectomy with a pancreas-preserving procedure in patients undergoing relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of nine institutions included patients who underwent relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy from 2005-2018. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

From 4877 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, 786 (16 per cent) developed a pancreatic fistula grade B/C and 162 (3 per cent) underwent a relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula. Of these patients, 36 (22 per cent) underwent a completion pancreatectomy and 126 (78 per cent) a pancreas-preserving procedure. Mortality was higher after completion pancreatectomy (20 (56 per cent) versus 40 patients (32 per cent); P = 0.009), which remained after adjusting for sex, age, BMI, ASA score, previous reintervention, and organ failure in the 24 h before relaparotomy (adjusted odds ratio 2.55, 95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 6.08). The proportion of additional reinterventions was not different between groups (23 (64 per cent) versus 84 patients (67 per cent); P = 0.756). The meta-analysis including 33 studies evaluating 745 patients, confirmed the association between completion pancreatectomy and mortality (Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model: odds ratio 1.99, 95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 3.84).

CONCLUSION

Based on the current data, a pancreas-preserving procedure seems preferable to completion pancreatectomy in patients in whom a relaparotomy is deemed necessary for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Postoperative pancreatic fistula after gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is one of the most severe complications after gastric cancer surgery, and can cause critical patient conditions leading to surgery-related death. Fortunately, the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula after gastrectomy seems to be decreasing with changes in operative procedures. The rate was reported at about 30% after open gastrectomy with Appleby's method in 1997, but lately has improved below 1% for robotic gastrectomy in 2019. For the diagnosis of postoperative pancreatic fistula, drain amylase concentration has been demonstrated to be beneficial and some reports have proposed the optimal cut-off values of drain amylase to predict major postoperative pancreatic fistula. There have been many reports identifying risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula, including overweight patients, pancreatic anatomy, blunt trauma from compression of the pancreas, and thermal injuries caused by the continuous use of energy devices. And importantly, laparoscopic gastrectomy has been shown to be more often associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula than open gastrectomy in the prospective national clinical database in Japan. Hence, further sophistication of surgical techniques to reduce pancreas compression would have great promise in reducing postoperative pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic gastrectomy.

Surgical management of the grade C pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of severe pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy remains challenging, and carries high mortality. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare different surgical techniques used at relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy, and to identify factors predictive of failure to rescue.

METHODS

A total of 43 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy developed a pancreatic fistula requiring relaparotomy. The perioperative data and outcomes were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Completion pancreatectomy, simple drainage of the pancreatic anastomosis and external wirsungostomy were performed in 17, 16, and 10 cases, respectively. The mortality rate for completion pancreatectomy was 47.1%, compared with 56.3% for simple drainage (p = 0.598) and 50.0% for external wirsungostomy (p = 0.883). Simple drainage was associated with a higher rate of further relaparotomies (56.3%) in comparison with completion pancreatectomy (23.5%, p = 0.055) and external wirsungostomy (0%, p = 0.003). A rescue resection of the pancreatic remnant after failed simple drainage resulted invariably in death. On multivariate analysis, the factors predictive of mortality after relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula were organ failure on the day of reoperation (p = 0.001) and need of further surgical reintervention (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Timely reintervention and appropriate surgical technique are essential for reducing mortality after reoperation for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Outpatient Drainmanagement of patients with clinically relevant Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula (POPF)

PURPOSE

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a common complication after pancreatic surgery associated with extended hospitalization, increased medical costs, and reduced quality of life. The aim of the present study was to analyze the feasibility of ambulatory drainage and develop an ambulatory management algorithm.

METHODS

Patients with POPF grade B or C (according to the ISGPF classification) between Jan. 2005 and Dec. 2014 that required persistent drainage were identified from a prospectively collected database. Postoperative events and clinical outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 132 out of 887 patients (14.8%) developed a POPF (grade B or C), and 45 (34.1%) were discharged from the hospital with percutaneous drainage. For patients with grade B fistulas, the mean hospital stay was significantly shorter compared to patients with grade C fistulas (mean 27.7 vs. 40 days; p = 0.0285). About 40% of patients with ambulatory drainage developed a complication, but only 28.9% required readmission. Of those, 52.9% did not require specific treatment and 26.3% were treated with a new drain placement. None of the patients developed major complications, and there was no difference in the frequency of complications between the two groups (p = 0.872). The duration of drain persistence was significantly shorter for patients with grade B fistulas than for those with grade C fistulas (52.2 vs. 85.9 days; p = 0.0007).

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulatory drainage management is feasible in selected patients. No severe complications occurred during ambulatory drainage management. A management algorithm is recommended as this could possibly reduce medical costs and improve quality of life.