한국간담췌외과학회지 (Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery)

  • 제13권4호
  • /
  • Pages.286-294
  • /
  • 2009
  • /
  • 2508-5778(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2508-5859(eISSN)
한국간담췌외과학회 (The Korean Association of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery)
권호 표지

Binding 췌공장문합술의 초기 경험 및 Dunking 췌공장문합술과의 비교

Binding Pancreaticojejunostomy Compared with Dunking Pancreaticojejunostomy

  • 김세준 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 대전성모병원 외과학교실) ;
  • 이동호 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 대전성모병원 외과학교실) ;
  • 김정구 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 대전성모병원 외과학교실) ;
  • 이광진 (목원대학교 정보컨설팅학과)
  • Kim, Say-June (Department of Surgery, Deajeon St. Mary' Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Dong-Ho (Department of Surgery, Deajeon St. Mary' Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Jeong-Goo (Department of Surgery, Deajeon St. Mary' Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Kwang-Jin (Department of Information Consulting, Mokwon University)
  • 발행 : 2009.12.31

⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: Pancreatic fistulas are a leading cause of mortality and morbidity following pancreaticoduodenectomy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the possibility of controlling pancreatic fistula formation by binding pancreaticojejunostomy into the operative procedure, as proposed by Peng, which results in a 3 cm invagination of the pancreatic remnant by the jejunal segment bearing electrically-destroyed mucosa reinforced by inner and outer sutures. Methods: Prospectively collected data of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy in the Department of Surgery of Daejeon St. Mary's hospital between April 2007 and May 2009 were analyzed retrospectively. Thirty-one patients were included in the study; 16 patients underwent dunking pancreaticojejunostomy and 15 patients underwent binding pancreaticojejunostomy. Results: The two groups were comparable with respect to demographic data, pre-operative characteristics, underlying pathologies, pancreatic textures, and duct diameters. The mean operative time did not differ between the two groups ($388{\pm}29$ min vs. $459{\pm}21$ min, p=0.060). No difference existed in the post-operative course except for the degree of complications. In contrast to the dunking group, in which 2 cases of grade III/V pancreatic fistulas occurred, the binding group had no severe complications. In addition, transformation of amylase data measured from Jackson-Pratt drains into a natural logarithm demonstrated significant differences on post-operative (POD) days 1, 3, and 7 between the dunking and binding groups (POD1, $6.97{\pm}0.41$ vs. $6.10{\pm}0.44$ [p=0.037]; POD3, $6.97{\pm}0.41$ vs. $6.10{\pm}0.44$ [p=0.032]; POD7, $4.69{\pm}0.35$ vs. $3.88{\pm}0.25$ [p=0.034], respectively). Conclusion: Bindning pancreaticojejunostomy is equivalent to dunking pancreaticojejunostomy with respect to operative difficulties, and more effective in preventing complications related to pancreatic fistulas.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Molinari E, Bassi C, Salvia R, 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;246:281-287. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3180caa42f
  2. Benzoni E, Saccomano E, Zompicchiatti A, et al. The role of pancreatic leakage on rising of postoperative complications following pancreatic surgery. J Surg Res 2008;149:272-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2007.09.002
  3. Lin JW, Cameron JL, Yeo CJ, Riall TS, Lillemoe KD. Risk factors and outcomes in postpancreaticoduodenectomy pancreaticocutaneous fistula. J Gastrointest Surg 2004;8:951-959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gassur.2004.09.044
  4. Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Maher MM, et al. A prospective randomized trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 1995; 222:580-592. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199510000-00014
  5. Peng S, Mou Y, Cai X, Peng C. Binding pancreaticojejunostomy is a new technique to minimize leakage. Am J Surg 2002;183:283-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(02)00792-4
  6. Peng S, Wang J, Li J, Mou Y, Liu Y, Cai X. Binding pancreaticojejunostomy- a safe and reliable anastomosis procedure. HPB (Oxford) 2004;6:154-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/13651820410016598
  7. Shinchi H, Wada K, Traverso LW. The usefulness of drain data to identify a clinically relevant pancreatic anastomotic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy? J Gastrointest Surg 2006; 10:490-498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gassur.2005.08.029
  8. Sikora SS, Posner MC. Management of the pancreatic stump following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 1995;82:1590-1597. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800821205
  9. Poon RT, Fan ST, Lo CM, 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;246:425-435. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181492c28
  10. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240:205-213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
  11. Yang YM, Tian XD, Zhuang Y, Wang WM, Wan YL, Huang YT. Risk factors of pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol 2005;11:2456-2461. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v11.i16.2456
  12. Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD, et al. Does prophylactic octreotide decrease the rates of pancreatic fistula and other complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized placebo-controlled trial. Ann Surg 2000;232:419-429. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200009000-00014
  13. van Berge Henegouwen MI, De Wit LT, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and treatment of pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy: drainage versus resection of the pancreatic remnant. J Am Coll Surg 1997;185:18-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1072-7515(01)00876-6
  14. Strasberg SM, Drebin JA, Mokadam NA, et al. Prospective trial of a blood supply-based technique of pancreaticojejunostomy: effect on anastomotic failure in the Whipple procedure. J Am Coll Surg 2002;194:746-760. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01202-4
  15. Hamanaka Y, Nishihara K, Hamasaki T, et al. Pancreatic juice output after pancreatoduodenectomy in relation to pancreatic consistency, duct size, and leakage. Surgery 1996;119:281-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6060(96)80114-0
  16. Ishikawa O, Ohigashi H, Imaoka S, et al. Concomitant benefit of preoperative irradiation in preventing pancreas fistula formation after pancreatoduodenectomy. Arch Surg 1991;126: 885-889. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1991.01410310095014
  17. Marcus SG, Cohen H, Ranson JH. Optimal management of the pancreatic remnant after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 1995;221:635-648. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199506000-00003
  18. Matsusue S, Takeda H, Nakamura Y, Nishimura S, Koizumi S. A prospective analysis of the factors influencing pancreaticojejunostomy performed using a single method, in 100 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. Surg Today 1998;28: 719-726. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02484618
  19. Grace PA, Pitt HA, Tompkins RK, DenBesten L, Longmire WP Jr. Decreased morbidity and mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 1986;151:141-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(86)90024-3
  20. Funovics JM, Zöch G, Wenzl E, Schulz F. Progress in reconstruction after resection of the head of the pancreas. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1987;164:545-548.
  21. Bartoli FG, Arnone GB, Ravera G, Bachi V. Pancreatic fistula and relative mortality in malignant disease after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Review and statistical meta-analysis regarding 15 years of literature. Anticancer Res 1991;11:1831-1848.
  22. Matsumoto Y, Fujii H, Miura K, et al. Successful pancreatojejunal anastomosis for pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;175:555-562.
  23. Howard JM. Pancreatojejunostomy: leakage is a preventable complication of the Whipple resection. J Am Coll Surg 1997; 184:454-457.
  24. Poon RT, Lo SH, Fong D, Fan ST, Wong J. Prevention of pancreatic anastomotic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 2002;183:42-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(01)00829-7
  25. Mason GR. Pancreatogastrostomy as reconstruction for pancreatoduodenectomy: review. World J Surg 1999;23:221-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00013188
  26. Amano H, Takada T, Ammori BJ, et al. Pancreatic duct patency after pancreaticogastrostomy: long-term follow-up study. Hepatogastroenterology 1998;45:2382-2387.
  27. Lemaire E, O'Toole D, Sauvanet A, Hammel P, Belghiti J, Ruszniewski P. Functional and morphological changes in the pancreatic remnant following pancreaticoduodenectomy with pancreaticogastric anastomosis. Br J Surg 2000;87:434-438. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01388.x
  28. Imaizumi T, Harada N, Hatori T, Fukuda A, Takasaki K. Stenting is unnecessary in duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy even in the normal pancreas. Pancreatology 2002;2: 116-121. https://doi.org/10.1159/000055901
  29. Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, et al. Does pancreatic duct stenting decrease the rate of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized trial. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10:1280-1290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gassur.2006.07.020
  30. Peng SY, Mou YP, Liu YB, et al. Binding pancreaticojejunostomy: 150 consecutive cases without leakage. J Gastrointest Surg 2003;7:898-900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-003-0036-6