4.4 Article

Rapid postoperative reduction in prognostic nutrition index is associated with the development of pancreatic fistula following distal pancreatectomy

期刊

PANCREATOLOGY
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 216-220

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2014.02.006

关键词

Pancreatic fistula; Distal pancreatectomy; Risk factor; Nutritional index

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Backgrounds: Despite recent advances in surgical techniques and devices for pancreatic remnant closure, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) still remains one of the common complications after distal pancreatectomy (DP). Identification of risk factors for POPF may lead to the development of new strategies to prevent this ominous complication. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data on 44 patients undergoing DP with the use of a stapler to identify risk factors for POPF. Study variables included preoperative prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and reduction rate of PNI on postoperative day (POD) 7. Results: POPF occurred in 23 patients (52%), of which 13 (56%) were grade B or C. Univariate analyses comparing patients with POPF and those without POPF showed significant differences in body mass index (P = 0.0102), pancreatic thickness (P = 0.0134), white blood cell count on POD7 (P = 0.0432), C-reactive protein level on POD7 (P = 0.0123), and PNI reduction rate (P = 0.0471). A multivariate analysis revealed pancreatic thickness (P = 0.0121) and PNI reduction rate (P = 0.0165) to be significant factors for POPF. Furthermore, the PNI reduction rate was significantly higher in patients with clinically relevant (grade B/C) POPF than in those with no or grade A POPF (P = 0.0257). In most patients, the massive postoperative PNI reduction preceded the diagnosis of clinically relevant POPF. Conclusions: These findings suggest that rapid postoperative reduction in PNI is associated with the development of POPF. Copyright (C) 2014, IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier India, a division of Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd. 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

4.4
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