4.5 Article

Reduced Pancreatic Parenchymal Thickness Indicates Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency After Pancreatoduodenectomy

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 171, 期 2, 页码 473-478

出版社

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

关键词

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

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据