4.5 Article

Biliary Complications After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Skinny Bile Ducts Are Surgeons' Enemies

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 38, 期 11, 页码 2946-2951

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-014-2698-5

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and predisposing factors of biliary complications (BCs) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and report our experience in managing these BCs. Pancreatic surgery, particularly PD, has benefited from improvements in operative techniques and postoperative care and is currently safer in terms of mortality. However, the morbidity associated with PD remains high, including frequent complications such as delayed gastric emptying and pancreatic fistulas. Rarer but important BCs are those that manifest as bile leaks (BLs) and biliary strictures (BSs). Between April 2005 and December 2011, a total of 397 patients underwent PD at two centers. All data were retrospectively studied with respect to age, gender, pancreatic pathology, neoadjuvant treatment, preoperative biliary stenting, intraoperative data, postoperative pancreatic fistula, BL and BS rates, and mortality. The management of BCs was also analyzed. Thirty patients experienced a BC: 13 BLs (3.3 %) and 17 BSs (4.3 %). A thin bile duct (< 5 mm), measured during surgery, was the only predisposing factor for developing a BL or a BS. The management of the BLs consisted of surveillance in six patients (46 %), percutaneous drainage of bilioma in four patients (31 %), and reintervention in three patients (23 %). No patient with a BS had surgery as the frontline treatment: the initial management consisted of an endoscopic procedure, a percutaneous procedure, or medical treatment. Four patients (23.5 %) underwent surgical treatment after failure of nonsurgical procedures. The only identified predictive factor of BC, either a BS or a BL, was a thin bile duct. Although the noninvasive technique was the treatment of choice initially, reintervention was required in almost 25 % of the cases.

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