4.6 Article

Incidence, risk factors and clinical implications of chyle leak after pancreatic surgery

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 104, 期 1, 页码 108-117

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10316

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Chyle leak is a well known but poorly characterized complication after pancreatic surgery. Available data on incidence, risk factors and clinical significance of chyle leak are highly heterogeneous. Methods: For this cohort study all patients who underwent pancreatic surgery between January 2008 and December 2012 were identified from a prospective database. Chyle leak was defined as any drainage output with triglyceride content of 110 mg/dl or more. Risk factors for chyle leak were assessed by univariable and multivariable analyses. The clinical relevance of chyle leak was evaluated using hospital stay and resolution by 14 days for short-term outcome and overall survival for long-term outcome. Results: Chyle leak developed in 346 (10.4 per cent) of 3324 patients. Pre-existing diabetes, resection for malignancy, distal pancreatectomy, duration of surgery 180 min or longer, and concomitant pancreatic fistula or abscess were independent risk factors for chyle leak. Both isolated chyle leak and coincidental chyle leak (with other intra-abdominal complications) were associated with prolonged hospital stay. Some 178 (87.7 per cent) of 203 isolated chyle leaks and 90 (70.3 per cent) of 128 coincidental chyle leaks resolved with conservative management within 14 days. Initial and maximum drainage volumes were associated with duration of hospital stay and success of therapy by 14 days. Impact on survival was restricted to chyle leaks that persisted at 14 days in patients with cancer undergoing palliative surgery. Conclusion: Chyle leak is a relevant complication, with an incidence of more than 10 per cent after pancreatic surgery, and has a major impact on hospital stay. Drainage volume is associated with hospital stay and success of therapy.

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

4.6
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