4.3 Article

Risk factors for pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective study in a Thai tertiary center

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 9, Issue 12, Pages 270-280

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v9.i12.270

Keywords

Risk factors; Pancreatic fistula; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM To analyze the risk factors of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy in a Thai tertiary care center. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 179 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy at our hospital from January 2001 to December 2016. Pancreatic fistula were classified into three categories according to a definition made by an International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula. The risk factors for pancreatic fistula were analyzed by univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS Pancreatic fistula were detected in 88/179 patients (49%) who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. Fifty-eight pancreatic fistula (65.9%) were grade A, 22 cases (25.0%) were grade B and eight cases (9.1%) were grade C. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula were detected in 30/179 patients (16.7%). The 30-d mortality rate was 1.67% (3/179 patients). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that soft pancreatic texture (odds ratio = 3.598, 95% CI: 1.77-7.32) was the most significant risk factor for pancreatic fistula. A preoperative serum bilirubin level of > 3 mg/dL was the most significant risk factor for clinically relevant pancreatic fistula according to univariate and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION Soft pancreatic tissue is the most significant risk factor for postoperative pancreatic fistula. A high preoperative serum bilirubin level (> 3 mg/dL) is the most significant risk factor for clinically relevant pancreatic fistula.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available