4.7 Article

Surgical Outcomes and Trends for Chronic Pancreatitis: An Observational Cohort Study from a High-Volume Centre

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11082105

关键词

chronic pancreatitis; duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection; high-volume centre; pancreaticoduodenectomy; surgical treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the short- and medium-term outcomes of surgical treatment for chronic pancreatitis (CP) and found that duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) and pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) had comparable post-operative morbidity and pain relief. However, the trend over time showed a higher rate of PD being performed.
Surgery for chronic pancreatitis (CP) is considered as a last resort treatment. The present study aims to determine the short- and medium-term outcomes of surgical treatment for CP with a comparison between duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) and pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). The trends in surgical procedures were also examined. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent surgery for CP between 2000 and 2019 at the Karolinska University Hospital. One hundred and sixty-two patients were included. Surgery performed included drainage procedures (n = 2), DPPHR (n = 35), resections (n = 114, of these PD in n = 65) and other procedures (n = 11). Morbidity occurred in 17%, and the 90-day mortality was 1%. Complete or partial pain relief was achieved in 65% of patients. No significant difference in morbidity was observed between the DPPHR and PD groups: 17% vs. 20% (p = 0.728). Pain relief did not differ between the groups (62% for DPPHR vs. 73% for PD, p = 0.142). The frequency of performed DPPHR decreased, whereas the rate of PD remained unaltered. Surgical treatment for CP is safe and effective. DPPHR and PD are comparable regarding post-operative morbidity and are equally effective in achieving pain relief. Trends over time revealed PD as more commonly performed compared to DPPHR.

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

4.7
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