4.6 Article

Consequences of metabolic syndrome on postoperative outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 17, Pages 3142-3149

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i17.3142

Keywords

Soft pancreas; Postoperative outcomes; Metabolic syndrome; Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM To analyze immediate postoperative outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy regarding metabolic syndrome. METHODS In two academic centers, postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy from 2002 to 2014 were prospectively recorded. Patients presenting with metabolic syndrome [defined as at least three criteria among overweight (BMI >= 28 kg/m(2)), diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension and dyslipidemia] were compared to patients without metabolic syndrome. RESULTS Among 270 consecutive patients, 29 (11%) presented with metabolic syndrome. In univariable analysis, patients with metabolic syndrome were significantly older (69.4 years vs 62.5 years, p = 0.003) and presented more frequently with soft pancreas (72% vs 22%, p = 0.0001). In-hospital morbidity (83% vs 71%) and mortality (7% vs 6%) did not differ in the two groups so as pancreatic fistula rate (45% vs 30%, p = 0.079) and severity of pancreatic fistula (p = 0.257). In multivariable analysis, soft pancreas texture (p = 0.001), pancreatic duct diameter < 3 mm (p = 0.025) and BMI > 30 kg/m (p = 0.041) were identified as independent risk factors of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy, but not metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSION In spite of logical reasoning and appropriate methodology, present series suggests that metabolic syndrome does not jeopardize postoperative outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Therefore, definition of metabolic syndrome seems to be inappropriate and fatty pancreas needs to be assessed with an international consensual histopathological classification.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available