Preview

Medical Visualization

Advanced search

Prediction of postpancreatoduodenectomy pancreatic fistula with the use of computer tomography

https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-2019-1-19-27

Abstract

Aim. To reveal and evaluate opportunities of preoperative computer tomography (CT) for pancreatic fistula (PF) prediction after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Materials and methods. In 2005 International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) developed grading criteria for PF, including asymptomatic biochemical (Grade A), that could be treated conservatively, and clinically relevant (Grade B, Grade C), with consecutive active surgical treatment. For now ISGPF definition of PF is widely accepted. We review the literature since 2005 for original articles in English describing quantitive assessment of the pancreatic parenchyma using CT with histological validation. Low sample trials (<10 cases) were excluded.

Results. Three original publications met the inclusion criteria. Fatty and fibrosis infiltration of the pancreatic parenchyma assessed by preoperative CT revealed statistically significant correlation with PF rate.

Conclusion. Preoperative CT offers accurate prediction opportunities for postoperative pancreatic fistula and may help caregivers to set up protocols for a strict and early detection of warning clinical signs, to tailor the clinical management of different risk classes, or to select high-risk patients who might be excluded from surgical resection. This would also improve patient selection for relevant research protocols and facilitate a more definitive assessment of collected data related to surgical outcomes, across different institutions and surgeons, and even among different surgeries, in either single-institution or multi-center trials that involve pancreatic surgery.

About the Authors

I. E. Khatkov
Moscow Clinical Scientific Center named after A.S. Loginov; Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation

Igor E. Khatkov - doct. of med. sci., Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Head of MCSC named after A.S. Loginov; Chief of Department of Facultative Surgery №2 MSUMD named after A.I. Evdokimov


Competing Interests: no conflict of interest


S. A. Domrachev
Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation

Sergej A. Domrachev - doct. of med. sci., Professor, associated Professor of Department of Facultative Surgery №2


Competing Interests: no conflict of interest


V. V. Tsvirkun
Moscow Clinical Scientific Center named after A.S. Loginov
Russian Federation

Viktor V. Tsvirkun - doct. of med. sci., Professor, Chief Researcher


Competing Interests: no conflict of interest


R. E. Izrailov
Moscow Clinical Scientific Center named after A.S. Loginov; Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation

Roman E. Izrailov - doct. of med. sci., Head of Department of Innovative Surgery of MCSC named after A.S. Loginov; associated Professor of Department of Facultative Surgery №2 MSUMD named after A.I. Evdokimov


Competing Interests: no conflict of interest


O. S. Vasnev
Moscow Clinical Scientific Center named after A.S. Loginov
Russian Federation

Oleg S. Vasnev - doct. of med. sci., Head of Department of High-tech Surgery and Surgical Endoscopy


Competing Interests: no conflict of interest


Yu. V. Kulezneva
Moscow Clinical Scientific Center named after A.S. Loginov; Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation

Yuliya V. Kulezneva - doct. of med. sci., Professor, Head of the Department of Radiological Diagnosis and Treatment of MCSC named after A.S. Loginov; associated Professor of Department of Facultative Surgery №2 MSUMD named after A.I. Evdokimov


Competing Interests: no conflict of interest


K. A. Les’ko
Moscow Clinical Scientific Center named after A.S. Loginov
Russian Federation

Konstantin A. Les’ko - cand. of med. sci., radiologist of radiology department


Competing Interests: no conflict of interest


V. V. Schadrova
Moscow Clinical Scientific Center named after A.S. Loginov
Russian Federation

Viktoriya V. Schadrova - radiologist of radiology department


Competing Interests: no conflict of interest


B. S. Nikitin
Moscow Clinical Scientific Center named after A.S. Loginov
Russian Federation

Boris S. Nikitin - radiologist of radiology department


Competing Interests: no conflict of interest


N. S. Starostina
Moscow Clinical Scientific Center named after A.S. Loginov
Russian Federation

Nataliya S. Starostina - cand. of med. sci., Senior Researcher of the Department of Radiological Diagnosis and Treatment


Competing Interests: no conflict of interest


P. S. Tyutyunnik
Moscow Clinical Scientific Center named after A.S. Loginov; Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation

Pavel S. Tyutyunnik - Researcher of Department of Innovative Surgery of MCSC named after A.S. Loginov; Assistant of Department of Facultative Surgery №2 of MSUMD named after A.I. Evdokimov


Competing Interests: no conflict of interest


M. E. Baychorov
Moscow Clinical Scientific Center named after A.S. Loginov
Russian Federation
Magomet E. Baychorov – Postgraduate
Competing Interests:

no conflict of interest



А. V. Andrianov
Moscow Clinical Scientific Center named after A.S. Loginov; Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation

Alexey V. Andrianov - Researcher of Department of Innovative Surgery of MCSC named after A.S.Loginov; Senior labora-torian of Department of Facultative Surgery №2 of MSUMD named after A.I. Evdokimov


Competing Interests: no conflict of interest


M. V. Mikhnevich
Moscow Clinical Scientific Center named after A.S. Loginov; Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov
Russian Federation

Mikhail V. Mikhnevich - Surgical oncologist of Department of High-tech Surgery and Surgical Endoscopy of MCSC named after A.S. Loginov; Senior laboratorian of Department of Facultative Surgery №2 of MSUMD named after A.I. Evdokimov.

Apt. 9, 38, Metallurgov str., Moscow, 111399, Phone: +7-909-644-40-33


Competing Interests: no conflict of interest


References

1. Bassi C., Dervenis C., Butturini G., Fingerhut A., Yeo C., Izbicki J., Neoptolemos J., Sarr M., Traverso W., Buchler M., International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005; 138 (1):8-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2005.05.001.

2. Cameron J.L., Riall T.S., Coleman J., Belcher K.A. One thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. Ann. Surg. 2006; 244 (1): 10-15. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000217673.04165.ea.

3. Winter J.M., Cameron J.L., Campbell K.A., Arnold M.A., Chang D.C., Coleman J., Hodgin M.B., Sauter P.K., Hruban R.H., Riall T.S., Schulick R.D., Choti M.A., Lillemoe K.D., Yeo C.J. 1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: A single-institution experience. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2006. 10 (9): 1199-1210; discussion 1210-1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gassur. 2006.08.018.

4. Daskalaki D., Butturini G., Molinari E., Crippa S., Pederzoli P., Bassi C. A grading system can predict clinical and economic outcomes of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: results in 755 consecutive patients. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2011; 396 (1): 91-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-010-0719-x.

5. Niedergethmann M., Farag Soliman M., Post S. Postoperative complications of pancreatic cancer surgery. Minerva Chir. 2004; 59 (2): 175-183.

6. Tani M., Kawai M., Hirono S., Hatori T., Imaizumi T., Nakao A., Egawa S., Asano T., Nagakawa T, Yamaue H. Use of omentum or falciform ligament does not decrease complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: nationwide survey of the Japanese Society of Pancreatic Surgery. Surgery. 2012; 151 (2): 183-191. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.surg.2011.07.023.

7. Boggi U., Amorese G., Vistoli F., Caniglia F, De Lio N., Perrone V., Barbarello L., Belluomini M., Signori S., Mosca F. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review. Surg. Endosc. 2015: 29 (1):9-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3670-z.

8. Katayama H., Kurokawa Y., Nakamura K., Ito H., Kanemitsu Y., Masuda N., Tsubosa Y., Satoh T., Yoko-mizo A., Fukuda H., Sasako M. Extended Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Japan Clinical Oncology Group postoperative complications criteria. Surg. Today. 2016; 46 (6): 668-685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-015-1236-x.

9. Riall T.S., Reddy D.M., Nealon W.H., Goodwin J.S. The effect of age on short-term outcomes after pancreatic resection: a population-based study. Ann. Surg. 2008: 248 (3): 459-467. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318185e1b3.

10. Callery M.P, Pratt W.B., Vollmer C.M. Jr. Prevention and management of pancreatic fistula. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2009; 13 (1): 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-008-0534-7.

11. Veillette G., Dominguez I., Ferrone C., Thayer S.P., McGrath D., Warshaw A.L., Fernandez-del Castillo C. Implications and management of pancreatic fistulas following pancreaticoduodenectomy: the Massachusetts General Hospital experience. Arch. Surg. 2008; 143 (5): 476-481. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.143.5.476.

12. House M.G., Fong Y., Arnaoutakis D.J., Sharma R., Winston C.B., Protic M., Gonen M., Olson S.H,. Kurtz R.C., Brennan M.F., Allen P.J. Preoperative predictors for complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: impact of BMI and body fat distribution. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2008; 12 (2): 270-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-007-0421-7.

13. Roberts K.J., Sutcliffe R.P., Marudanayagam R., Hodson J., Isaac J., Muiesan P., Navarro A., Patel K., Jah A., Napetti S., Adair A., Lazaridis S., Prachalias A., Shingler G., Al-Sarireh B., Storey R., Smith A.M., Shah N., Fusai G., Ahmed J., Abu Hilal M., Mirza D.F. Scoring system to predict pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a UK multicenter study. Ann. Surg. 2015; 261 (6): 1191-1197. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000997.

14. DeOliveira M.L., Winter J.M., Schafer M., Cunningham S.C., Cameron J.L., Yeo C.J., Clavien P.A. Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: A novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann. Surg. 2006; 244 (6): 931-937; discussion 937-939. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000246856.03918.9a.

15. Lermite E., Pessaux P., Brehant O., Teyssedou C., Pelletier I., Etienne S., Arnaud J.P. Risk factors of pancreatic fistula and delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy with pancreaticogastrostomy. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2007; 204 (4): 588-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.018.

16. Tajima Y., Kuroki T., Tsutsumi R., Fukuda K., Kitasato A., Adachi T, Mishima T., Kanematsu T. Risk factors for pancreatic anastomotic leakage: the significance of preoperative dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas as a predictor of leakage. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2006; 202 (5): 723-731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.01.008.

17. Akamatsu N., Sugawara Y., Komagome M., Shin N., Cho N., Ishida T, Ozawa F, Hashimoto D. Risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: the significance of the ratio of the main pancreatic duct to the pancreas body as a predictor of leakage. J. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Sci. 2010; 17 (3): 322-328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-009-0248-6.

18. Mathur A., Pitt H.A., Marine M., Saxena R., Schmidt C.M., Howard T.J., Nakeeb A., Zyromski N.J., Lillemoe K.D. Fatty pancreas: a factor in postoperative pancreatic fistula. Ann. Surg. 2007; 246 (6): 1058-1064. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31814a6906.

19. Gaujoux S., Cortes A., Couvelard A., Noullet S., Clavel L., Rebours V., Levy P., Sauvanet A., Ruszniewski P., Belghiti J. Fatty pancreas and increased body mass index are risk factors of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery. 2010. 148 (1): 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.surg.2009.12.005.

20. Kanda M., Fujii T., Suenaga M., Takami H., Hattori M., Inokawa Y., Yamada S., Nakayama G., Sugimoto H., Koike M., Nomoto S., Kodera Y Estimated pancreatic parenchymal remnant volume accurately predicts clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Surgery. 2014; 156 (3): 601-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2014.04.011.

21. Cheng T.Y., Sheth K., White R.R., Ueno T., Hung C.F., Clary B.M., Pappas T.N., Tyler D.S. Effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on operative mortality and morbidity for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2006; 13 (1): 66-74. https://doi.org/10.1245/AS0.2006.02.003.

22. Heinrich S., Schafer M., Weber A., Hany T.F., Bhure U., Pestalozzi B.C., Clavien P.A. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy generates a significant tumor response in resectable pancreatic cancer without increasing morbidity: results of a prospective phase II trial. Ann. Surg. 2008; 248 (6): 1014-1022. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318190a6da.

23. Tomihara H., Eguchi H., Yamada D., Gotoh K., Kawamoto K., Wada H., Asaoka T., Noda T, Takeda Y., Tanemura M., Mori M., Doki Y. Preoperative chemo-radiotherapy does not compromise the feasibility of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Surg. Today. 2017; 47 (2): 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-016-1405-6.

24. Hashimoto Y, Traverso L.W. Pancreatic anastomotic failure rate after pancreaticoduodenectomy decreases with microsurgery. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2010; 211 (4): 510-521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.06.018.

25. Yamashita Y., Yoshida Y., Kurihara T., Tsujita E., Takeishi K., Ishida T, Ikeda T., Furukawa Y., Shirabe K., Maehara Y. Surgical loupes at 5.0x magnification and the VIO soft-coagulation system can prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula in duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy. AnticancerRes. 2015; 35 (3): 1691-1696.

26. Ho V., Heslin M.J. Effect of hospital volume and experience on in-hospital mortality for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann. Surg. 2003; 237 (4): 509-514. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.SLA.0000059981.13160.97.

27. Schmidt C.M., Turrini O., Parikh P., House M.G., Zyromski N.J., Nakeeb A., Howard T.J., Pitt H.A., Lillemoe K.D. Effect of hospital volume, surgeon experience, and surgeon volume on patient outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-institution experience. Arch. Surg. 2010; 145 (7): 634-640. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2010.118.

28. Laugier R., Camatte R., Sarles H. Chronic obstructive pancreatitis after healing of a necrotic pseudocyst. Am. J. Surg. 1983; 146 (5): 551-557.

29. Sarles H., Cambon P., Choux R., Payan M.J., Odaira S., Laugier R., Sahel J. Chronic obstructive pancreatitis due to tiny (0.6 to 8 mm) benign tumors obstructing pancreatic ducts: report of three cases. Pancreas. 1988; 3 (2): 232-237.

30. Hashimoto Y., Sclabas G.M., Takahashi N., Kirihara Y., Smyrk T.C., Huebner M., Farnell M.B. Dual-phase computed tomography for assessment of pancreatic fibrosis and anastomotic failure risk following pancreatoduodenectomy. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2011; 15 (12): 2193-2204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-011-1687-3.

31. Kang J.H., Park J.S., Yu J.S., Chung J.J., Kim J.H., Cho E.S., Yoon D.S. Prediction of pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy by preoperative dynamic CT and fecal elastase-1 levels. PLoS One. 2017; 12(5): e0177052. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177052.

32. Sugimoto M., Takahashi S., Kobayashi T., Kojima M., Gotohda N., Satake M., Ochiai A., Konishi M. Pancreatic perfusion data and post-pancreaticoduodenectomy outcomes. J. Surg. Res. 2015; 194 (2): 441-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2014.11.046.

33. Rosso E., Casnedi S., Pessaux P., Oussoultzoglou E., Panaro F, Mahfud M., Jaeck D., Bachellier P. The role of “fatty pancreas” and of BMI in the occurrence of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2009; 13 (10): 1845-1851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-009-0974-8.

34. Tranchart H., Gaujoux S., Rebours V., Vullierme M.P., Dokmak S., Levy P., Couvelard A., Belghiti J., Sauvanet A. Preoperative CT scan helps to predict the occurrence of severe pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann. Surg. 2012; 256 (1): 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318256c32c.

35. Kirihara Y., Takahashi N., Hashimoto Y., Sclabas G.M., Khan S., Moriya T., Sakagami J., Huebner M., Sarr M.G., Farnell M.B. Prediction of pancreatic anastomotic failure after pancreatoduodenectomy: the use of preoperative, quantitative computed tomography to measure remnant pancreatic volume and body composition. Ann. Surg. 2013; 257 (3): 512-519. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827827d0.

36. Sugimoto M., Takahashi S., Kojima M., Gotohda N., Kato Y., Kawano S., Ochiai A., Konishi M. What is the nature of pancreatic consistency? Assessment of the elastic modulus of the pancreas and comparison with tactile sensation, histology, and occurrence of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery. 2014; 156 (5): 1204-1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2014.05.015.

37. Belyaev O., Rosenkranz S., Munding J., Herzog T., Chromik A.M., Tannapfel A., Uhl W. Quantitative assessment and determinants of suture-holding capacity of human pancreas. J. Surg. Res. 2013; 184 (2): 807-812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.04.017

38. Motoi F., Egawa S., Rikiyama T., Katayose Y., Unno M. Randomized clinical trial of external stent drainage of the pancreatic duct to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticojejunostomy. Br. J. Surg. 2012; 99 (4): 524-531.

39. Xiong J.J., Altaf K., Mukherjee R., Huang W., Hu W.M., Li A., Ke N.W., Liu X.B. Systematic review and metaanalysis of outcomes after intraoperative pancreatic duct stent placement during pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br. J. Surg. 2012; 99 (8): 1050-1061. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8788.

40. Kawahara R., Akasu G., Ishikawa H., Yasunaga M., Kinoshita H. A questionnaire on the educational system for pancreatoduodenectomy performed in 1,134 patients in 71 institutions as members of the Japanese Society of Pancreatic Surgery. J. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Sci. 2013; 20 (2): 173-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-012-0505-y.

41. Tajima Y., Kuroki T., Kitasato A., Adachi T., Isomoto I., Uetani M., Kanematsu T. Patient allocation based on preoperative assessment of pancreatic fibrosis to secure pancreatic anastomosis performed by trainee surgeons: a prospective study. J. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Sci. 2010; 17 (6): 831-838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-010-0277-1.

42. Xiong J.J., Tan C.L., Szatmary P., Huang W., Ke N.W., Hu W.M., Nunes Q.M., Sutton R., Liu X.B. Meta-analysis of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejuno-stomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br. J. Surg. 2014. 101 (10): 1196-1208. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9553.

43. Menahem B., Guittet L., Mulliri A., Alves A., Lubrano J. Pancreaticogastrostomy is superior to pancreaticojejuno-stomy for prevention of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann. Surg. 2015; 261 (5): 882-887. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000806.

44. He T., Zhao Y., Chen Q., Wang X., Lin H., Han W. Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig. Surg. 2013; 30 (1): 56-69. https://doi.org/10.1159/000350901.

45. Keck T., Wellner U.F., Bahra M., et al. Pancreatogastrostomy Versus Pancreatojejunostomy for RECOnstruction After PANCreatoduodenectomy (RECOPANC, DRKS 00000767): Perioperative and Long-term Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann. Surg. 2016; 263 (3): 440-449. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001240.

46. Zeng Q., Zhang Q., Han S., Yu Z., Zheng M., Zhou M., Bai J., Jin R. Efficacy of somatostatin and its analogues in prevention of postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pancreas. 2008; 36 (1): 18-25. https://doi.org/10.1097/mpa.0b013e3181343f5d.

47. Gurusamy K.S., Koti R., Fusai G., Davidson B.R. Somatostatin analogues for pancreatic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013 (4): CD008370. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008370.pub3.

48. Allen P.J., Gonen M., Brennan M.F., Bucknor A.A., Robinson L.M., Pappas M.M., Carlucci K.E., D'Angelica M.I., DeMatteo R.P, Kingham T.P., Fong Y., Jarnagin W.R. Pasireotide for postoperative pancreatic fistula. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014; 370 (21): 2014-2022. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1313688.

49. Jin K., Zhou H., Zhang J., Wang W., Sun Y., Ruan C., Hu Z., Wang Y. Systematic review and meta-analysis of somatostatin analogues in the prevention of postoperative complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Dig. Surg. 2015; 32 (3): 196-207. https://doi.org/10.1159/000381032.


Review

For citations:


Khatkov I.E., Domrachev S.A., Tsvirkun V.V., Izrailov R.E., Vasnev O.S., Kulezneva Yu.V., Les’ko K.A., Schadrova V.V., Nikitin B.S., Starostina N.S., Tyutyunnik P.S., Baychorov M.E., Andrianov А.V., Mikhnevich M.V. Prediction of postpancreatoduodenectomy pancreatic fistula with the use of computer tomography. Medical Visualization. 2019;(1):19-27. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-2019-1-19-27

Views: 2371


ISSN 1607-0763 (Print)
ISSN 2408-9516 (Online)