4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

A soft pancreatic remnant is associated with increased drain fluid pancreatic amylase and serum CRP levels following pancreatoduodenectomy

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 51-56

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-007-0340-7

关键词

pancreatoduodenectomy; soft pancreatic texture; hard pancreatic texture; drainage fluid pancreatic amylase; C-reactive protein

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this prospective study was to clarify differences in postoperative changes of serum or drainage fluid pancreatic amylase levels and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels between patients with a soft pancreatic texture and those with a hard pancreatic texture undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) with pancreaticogastrostomy. A total of 61 consecutive patients with resectable periampullary tumors undergoing PD were recruited. This population was divided into 27 patients with a hard pancreatic texture and 34 patients with a soft pancreatic texture. Drainage fluid total amylase or pancreatic amylase levels, serum total amylase or pancreatic amylase levels, and serum CRP levels were measured postoperatively. Clinicopathological data were also compared between two groups. Postoperative complications more frequently occurred in patients with a soft pancreatic texture compared with those with a hard pancreatic texture (P=0.029). Serum or drainage fluid pancreatic amylase levels and serum CRP levels of patients with a soft pancreatic texture were significantly higher than those of patients with a hard pancreatic texture after PD on postoperative days 1 and 2 (P < 0.05). A soft pancreatic texture was identified as an only independent predictive factor of increased drainage fluid pancreatic amylase levels (P=0.006) and serum CRP levels (P=0.047). A soft pancreatic texture is closely associated with increased drainage fluid pancreatic amylase and serum CRP levels after PD. More careful post-PD management is needed for patients with a soft pancreatic texture.

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