4.5 Article

Reduced Pancreatic Parenchymal Thickness Indicates Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency After Pancreatoduodenectomy

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 171, Issue 2, Pages 473-478

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2010.03.052

Keywords

pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy; postoperative exocrine pancreatic function; (13)C-labeled mixed triglyceride breath test; pancreatic parenchymal thickness

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The aim of this study was to investigate whether perioperative morphologic characteristics are predictive of exocrine pancreatic function after pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy (PPPD) with pancreaticogastrostomy. Materials and Methods. A (13)C-labeled mixed triglyceride breath test was performed in 52 patients after PPPD to assess postoperative exocrine pancreatic function. A value of percent (13)CO(2) cumulative dose at 7 h (%CD-7h) of less than 5% was considered diagnostic of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Pre-and postoperative pancreatic parenchymal thicknesses were calculated using computed tomography (CT) scans, and compared by means of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results. Thirty-four (65.4%) of 52 patients were found to have exocrine pancreatic insufficiency based on the breath test. With ROC analysis for identification of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, the areas under the ROC curve for the postoperative pancreatic parenchymal thickness were higher than those for the preoperative pancreatic parenchymal thickness (0.904 and 0.702, respectively, P = 0.009). When the cut-off value of the postoperative pancreatic parenchymal thickness was set at 13.0 mm, the sensitivity and specificity for identifying exocrine pancreatic insufficiency were 88.2% and 88.9%, respectively. Conclusion. Reduced postoperative pancreatic parenchymal thickness is a reliable indicator of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency after PPPD. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available