Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A grading system can predict clinical and economic outcomes of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: results in 755 consecutive patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) has a wide range of clinical and economical implications due to the difference of the associated complications and management. The aim of this study is to verify the applicability of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition and its capability to predict hospital costs.

Methods

This is a retrospective study based on prospectively collected data of 755 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy in our institution between November 1996 and October 2006. A number of 147 patients (19.5%) have developed a POPF according to ISGPF definition.

Results

Grade A fistula, which has no clinical impact, occurred in 19% of all cases. Grade B occurred in 70.7% and was successfully managed with conservative therapy or mini-invasive procedures. Grade C (8.8%) was associated to severe clinical complications and required invasive therapy. Pulmonary complications were statistically higher in the groups B and C rather than the group A POPFs (p < 0.005; OR 8). Patients with carcinoma of the ampullary region had a higher incidence of POPF compared to ductal cancer, with a predominance of grade A (p = 0.036). Increasing fistula grades have higher hospital costs (€11.654, €25.698, and €59.492 for grades A, B, and C, respectively; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The development of a POPF does not always determine a substantial change of the postoperative management. Clinically relevant fistulas can be treated conservatively in most cases. Higher fistula severity corresponds to increased costs. The grading system proposed by the ISGPF allows a correct stratification of the complicated patients based on the real clinical and economic impact of the POPF.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bassi C, Butturini G, Molinari E, Mascetta G, Salvia R, Falconi M et al (2004) Pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatic resection. The importance of definitions. Dig Surg 21(1):54–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J et al (2005) International study group on pancreatic fistula definition. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138(1):8–13, review

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Butturini G, Marcucci S, Molinari E, Mascetta G, Landoni L, Crippa S et al (2006) Complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: the problem of current definitions. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 13(3):207–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ting-Bo L, Xue-Li B, Shu-Sen Z (2007) Pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: diagnosed according to the International study group pancreatic fistula (ISGPF) definition. Pancreatology 7:325–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Iannitti DA, Coburn NG, Somberg J, Ryder BA, Monchik J, Cioffi WG (2003) Use of the round ligament of the liver to decrease pancreatic fistulas: a novel technique. J Am Coll Surg 203(6):857–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pratt WB, Callery MP, Vollmer CM Jr (2008) Risk prediction for development of pancreatic fistula using the ISGPF classification scheme. World J Surg 32(3):419–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bassi C, Falconi M, Salvia R, Mascetta G, Molinari E, Pederzoli P (2001) Management of complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy in a high volume centre: results on 150 consecutive patients. Dig Surg 18(6):453–457, discussion 458

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Molinari E, Bassi C, Salvia R, Butturini G, Crippa S, Talamini G et al (2007) Amylase value in drains after pancreatic resection as predictive factor of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Results of a prospective study in 137patients. Ann Surg Aug 246(2):281–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bruno O, Brancatelli G, Sauvenet A, Vullierme MP, Barrau V, Vilgrain V (2009) Utility of CT in the diagnosis of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with soft pancreas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(3):W175–W180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Strasberg SM, Linehan DC, Clavien PA, Barkun JS (2007) Proposal for definition and severity grading of pancreatic anastomosis failure and pancreatic occlusion failure. Surgery 141(4):420–426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hashimoto M, Koga M, Ishiyama K, Watarai J, Shibata S, Sato T et al (2007) CT features of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188(4):W323–W327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Aranha GV, Aaron JM, Shoup M, Pickleman J (2006) Current management of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery 140(4):561–368, discussion 568–569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Payne RF, Pain JA (2006) Duct-to-mucosa pancreaticogastrostomy is a safe anastomosis following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 93(1):73–77

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pratt W, Maithel SK, Vanounou T, Callery MP, Vollmer CM Jr (2006) Postoperative pancreatic fistulas are not equivalent after proximal, distal, and central pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 10(9):1264–1278, discussion 1278–1279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Munoz-Bongrand N, Sauvanet A, Denys A, Sibert A, Vilgrain V, Belghiti J (2004) Conservative management of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy with pancreaticogastrostomy. J Am Coll Surg 199(2):198–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bassi C, Falconi M, Molinari E, Salvia R, Butturini G, Sartori N et al (2005) Reconstruction by pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy following pancreatectomy: results of a comparative study. Ann Surg 24(6):767–771, discussion 771–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yeo C, Cameron J, Maher M et al (1995) A prospective randomized trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 222:580–588

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lin JW, Cameron JL, Yeo CJ, Riall TS, Lillemoe KD (2004) Risk factors and outcomes in postpancreaticoduodenectomy pancreaticocutaneous fistula. J Gastrointest Surg 8(8):951–959

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Muscari F, Suc B, Kirzin S, Hay JM, Fourtanier G, Fingerhut A et al (2006) French Associations for Surgical Research. Risk factors for mortality and intra-abdominal complications after pancreatoduodenectomy: multivariate analysis in 300 patients. Surgery 139(5):591–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lermite E, Pessaux P, Brehant O, Teyssedou C, Pelletier I, Etienne S et al (2007) Risk factors of pancreatic fistula and delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy with pancreaticogastrostomy. J Am Coll Surg 204(4):588–596

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M, Cunningham SC, Cameron JL, Yeo CJ et al (2006) Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 244(6):931–937, discussion 937–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tsai S, Choti MA, Assumpcao L, Cameron JL, Gleisner AL, Herman JM, Eckhauser F, Edil BH, Schulick RD, Wolfgang CL, Pawlik TM (2010) Impact of obesity on perioperative outcomes and survival following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer: a large single-institute study. J Gastrointest Surg (epub ahead of print)

  23. Gaujoux S, Cortes A, Couvelard A, Noullet S, Clavel L, Rebours V, Lévy P, Sauvanet A, Ruszniewski P, Belghiti J (2010) Fatty pancreas and increased body mass index are risk factors of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery (epub ahead of print)

  24. Callery MP, Pratt WB, Vollmer CM Jr (2009) Prevention and management of pancreatic fistula. J Gastrointest Surg 13(1):163–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study has been supported by the Fondazione Italiana Malattie Pancreas (FIMP), Verona, Italy.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Surgical and Gastroenterological Department, University of Verona, Verona, Italy

    Despoina Daskalaki, Giovanni Butturini, Enrico Molinari, Stefano Crippa, Paolo Pederzoli & Claudio Bassi

  2. Surgical Department, Verona University Hospital, Piazzale LA Scuro, 10 37134, Verona, Italy

    Giovanni Butturini

Authors
  1. Despoina Daskalaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giovanni Butturini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Enrico Molinari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefano Crippa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paolo Pederzoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Claudio Bassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Butturini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Daskalaki, D., Butturini, G., Molinari, E. et al. A grading system can predict clinical and economic outcomes of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: results in 755 consecutive patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396, 91–98 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-010-0719-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-010-0719-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation