4.7 Article

Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial comparing the Beger and Frey procedures for patients suffering from chronic pancreatitis

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 241, 期 4, 页码 591-598

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000157268.78543.03

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To report on the long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial comparing pancreatic head resection according to Beget and limited pancreatic head excision combined with longitudinal pancreatico-jejunostomy according to Frey for surgical treatment of chronic pancreatitis. Summary Background Data: Resection and drainage are the 2 basic surgical principles in surgical treatment of chronic pancreatitis. They are combined to various degrees by the classic duodenum preserving pancreatic head resection (Beger) and limited pancreatic head excision combined with longitudinal pancreatico-jejunostomy (Frey). These procedures have been evaluated in a randomized controlled trial by our group. Long-term follow up has not been reported so far. Methods: Seventy-four patients suffering from chronic pancreatitis were initially allocated to DPHR (n = 38) or LE (n = 36). This postoperative follow-up included the following parameters: mortality, quality of life (QL), pain (validated pain score), and exocrine and endocrine function. Results: Median follow-up was 104 months (72-144). Seven patients were not available for follow-up (Beger = 4; Frey = 3). There was no significant difference in late mortality (31% [8/26] versus 32% [8/25]). No significant differences were found regarding QL (global QL 66.7 [0-100] versus 58.35 [0-100]), pain score (11.25 [0-75] versus 11.25 [0-99.75]), exocrine (88% versus 78%) or endocrine insufficiency (56% versus 60%). Conclusions: After almost 9 years' long-term follow-up, there was no difference regarding mortality, quality of life, pain, or exocrine or endocrine insufficiency within the 2 groups. The decision which procedure to choose should be based on the surgeon's experience.

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