4.5 Article

Roux-en-Y drainage of a pancreatic fistula for disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome after acute necrotizing pancreatitis

期刊

HPB
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 26-31

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00397.x

关键词

complications; acute pancreatitis; surgery; acute pancreatitis; acute pancreatitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: After acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP), a pancreatic fistula may occur from disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) where a segment of the pancreas is no longer in continuity with the main pancreatic duct. Aim: To study the outcome of patients treated using Roux-Y pancreatic fistula tract-jejunostomy for DPDS after ANP. Methods: Between 2002 and 2011, patients treated for DPDS in the setting of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or magnetic resonance cholangiopanreatography (MRCP) documented main pancreatic duct disruption with Roux-Y pancreatic fistula tract-jejunostomy. Results: In all, seven patients with DPDS were treated. The median age was 62 years (range 49-78) and five were men. The cause of ANP was gallstones (2), alcohol (1), ERCP (1) and idiopathic (3). Pancreatic necrosectomy was done in six patients. Time from onset of pancreatitis to fistula drainage was 270 days (164-365). Pancreatic fistulae arose from DPDS in the head/neck (4) and body/tail (3). Patients had a median fistula output of 140 ml (100-200) per day before surgery. The median operative time was 142 min (75-367) and estimated blood loss was 150 ml (25 to 500). Patients began an oral diet on post-operative day 4 (3-6) and were hospitalized for a median of 7 days (5-12). The median follow-up was 264 days (29-740). Subsequently, one patient required a distal pancreatectomy. After surgery, three patients required oral hypoglycaemics. No patient developed pancreatic exocrine insufficiency. Conclusion: Internal surgical drainage using Roux-en-Y pancreatic fistula tract-jejunostomy is a safe and definitive treatment for patients with DPDS.

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