Clinical and economic consequences of pancreatic fi stula after elective pancreatic resection

Hradec Králové, Czech Republic

Clinical and economic consequences of pancreatic fi stula after elective pancreatic resection

Filip Čečka, Bohumil Jon, Zdeněk Šubrt and Alexander Ferko

Hradec Králové, Czech Republic

BACKGROUND:Postoperative pancreatic fi stula is the main cause of morbidity after pancreatic resection. This study aimed to quantify the clinical and economic consequences of pancreatic fi stula in a medium-volume pancreatic surgery center.

METHODS:Hospital records from patients who had undergone elective pancreatic resection in our department were identif i ed. Pancreatic fi stula was def i ned according to the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF). The consequences of pancreatic fi stula were determined by treatment cost, hospital stay, and out-patient follow-up until the pancreatic fi stula was completely healed. All costs of the treatment are calculated in Euros. The cost increase index was calculated for pancreatic fi stula of grades A, B, and C as multiples of the total cost for the no fi stula group.

RESULTS:In 54 months, 102 patients underwent elective pancreatic resections. Forty patients (39.2%) developed pancreatic fi stula, and 54 patients (52.9%) had one or more complications. The median length of hospital stay for the no fi stula, grades A, B, and C fi stula groups was 12.5, 14, 20, and 59 days, respectively. The hospital stay of patients with fi stula of grades B and C was signif i cantly longer than that of patients with no fi stula (P<0.001). The median total cost of the treatment was 4952, 4679, 8239, and 30 820 Euros in the no fi stula, grades A, B, and C fi stula groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:The grading recommended by the ISGPF is useful for comparing the clinical severity of fi stula and for analyzing the clinical and economic consequences of pancreatic fi stula. Pancreatic fi stula prolongs the hospital stay and increases the cost of treatment in proportion to the severity of the fi stula.

(Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2013;12:533-539)

pancreatic resection; pancreatic fi stula; cost analysis

Introduction

Pancreatic resection is the only potentially curative modality for pancreatic neoplasm.[1,2]The mortality associated with this procedure has decreased rapidly in the past decades because of ref i nement of operative techniques, introduction of new surgical devices, and improvement in postoperative care, including new interventional radiology techniques.[3-5]However, the morbidity associated with pancreatic resection remains high.[6,7]The morbidity is due to postoperative pancreatic fi stula, which is regarded as the most ominous complication after pancreatic resection.[8,9]Its reported incidence varies from 10% to >30%.[8-11]This wide variability is largely due to different def i nitions of pancreatic fi stula.[12]The def i nitions are usually based on amylase concentration of drainage fl uid, volume, and duration of the drainage. When various def i nitions of pancreatic fi stula are applied to identical groups of patients, the incidence of pancreatic fi stula can range from 10% to 29% according to which def i nition is applied.[12]

A new universal def i nition of pancreatic fi stula was published in 2005.[13]According to the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF), pancreatic fi stula is def i ned as output via an operatively placed drain (or a subsequently placed percutaneous drain)of any measurable volume of drain fl uid on or after postoperative day 3, with an amylase content greater than three times the upper normal serum value.[13]The fi stula is then graded according to the clinical impact as A, B, or C. The ISGPF def i nition has been widely accepted.[14]

Previous studies[14,15]reported that postoperative pancreatic fi stula prolongs the hospital stay and increases the cost of treatment. Furthermore, pancreatic fi stula often requires readmission, radiology-guided percutaneous drainage, prolonged parenteral antibiotic therapy, radiological surveillance, and reoperations. The goal of this study was to quantify the consequences of pancreatic fi stula in terms of the cost of treatment, medical resources utilization, and the length of hospital stay in a medium-volume pancreatic surgery center. We hypothesized that pancreatic fi stula increases the cost of the treatment and prolongs the hospital stay in proportion to the severity of the fi stula.

Methods

Patients

Hospital records of patients who had undergone elective pancreatic resection at the University Hospital Hradec Králové, Czech Republic from January 2008 to June 2012 were identif i ed from our prospectively entered pancreatic surgery database. Patients with non-elective pancreatic resection and multivisceral pancreatic resection were excluded from the study because urgent resection and multivisceral resection may increase the morbidity and the rate of pancreatic fi stula.[16,17]Both open and laparoscopic pancreatic resections were included in the study.

Surgical technique

After pancreaticoduodenectomy, a pancreaticojejuno anastomosis was made in a duct-to-mucosa endto-side manner and in two layers with interrupted stitches in all patients. Ductal stents were not used, and pancreaticogastrostomy was not performed. Open distal pancreatectomy was performed in a uniform fashion, followed by a sharp transection with a blade. If the main pancreatic duct was visible, it was occluded with a stitch. Finally, the pancreatic remnant was secured with sutures. No staplers were used for the transection of the pancreas in open procedures. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was introduced in our department in 2009. For laparoscopic pancreatic resection, transection was done with a stapler. In the open procedures, three drains were routinely placed in the subhepatic region anterior to the pancreaticojejuno anastomosis, in the left subphrenic area, and in the Douglas space. In laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, one drain was placed in the left subphrenic area. Prophylactic octreotide was given to all of the patients (100 μg every 8 hours) for 5 days.

Postoperative management was standardized for all patients. Outputs from all drains were recorded daily. The amylase concentration was measured on postoperative day 3. If the amylase concentration was above three times of the normal serum value, the drain was kept in place and the measurement was repeated every other day. In clinically suspicious cases, ultrasound or CT scans were performed to assess peripancreatic fl uid collection. Undrained collections were drained with CT guidance.

Def i nitions of pancreatic fi stula and morbidity

Pancreatic fi stula was def i ned according to the ISGPF as output via operatively or postoperatively placed drains of any measurable volume of drain fl uid on or after postoperative day 3, with amylase content greater than three times of the upper normal serum value. Three grades of pancreatic fi stula were determined according to the clinical severity. The grades were determined only after complete healing of the fi stula.[13]

Grade A fi stula, also called "transient fi stula" has no clinical impact. They require little or no change in the clinical management of the patient. Grade A fi stula is not associated with a delay in hospital discharge; however, the patient may be discharged with the drain. The drain is usually removed within 3 weeks. Imaging studies do not reveal worrisome or suspicious peripancreatic collections.

Grade B fi stula is symptomatic and clinically apparent, and they require changes in clinical management or adjustment of the clinical pathway. The patients with grade B fi stula are usually supported by enteral or parenteral nutrition, and the peripancreatic drains are usually kept in place or new drains may be inserted. The patients may experience abdominal pain, fever, and leukocytosis.

Grade C fi stula is severe and clinically signif i cant, and they require major clinical adjustments. Aggressive intervention is needed for the patients with grade C fi stula. The patients are treated with enteral or parenteral nutrition, antibiotics, and somatostatin analogues often in the intensive care unit (ICU). CT scan usually shows worrisome peripancreatic fl uid collection that needs percutaneous drainage. Surgical revision may be indicated in some cases.

Other postoperative complications have been assessed according to the grading system proposed byDeOliveira et al,[6]i.e. grade I: any deviation from the normal postoperative course, e.g. wound infection; grade II: pharmacological treatment; grade III: surgical, endoscopic, or radiologic intervention; grade IV: singleorgan or multiorgan dysfunction; and grade V: death of patient.

Data collection

The data were prospectively put in the pancreatic surgery database of our department. Preoperative parameters included basic patient demographics (age, gender, and comorbidity) and presenting symptoms. Intraoperative parameters included operative time, perioperative complications, and blood loss. Postoperative events and management included incidence and type of complication, ICU stay, total hospital stay, radiological intervention, reoperation, and mortality.

Cost calculations

The economic consequences of pancreatic fi stula were determined by the cost of the treatment during the hospital stay, and during the out-patient follow-up lasting until the pancreatic fi stula was completely healed. The hospital costs covered operating room, pharmacy (medication, fl uid management, and nutritional support), radiology (imaging studies and interventional radiology), transfusion (blood products), laboratory examination, ICU, and room costs. The costs are expressed in Euros. Results are expressed as median and interquartile range.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using statistical software NCSS 2007. The cost increase index (CII) was calculated for pancreatic fi stula grades A, B, and C as multiples of the total cost for the no fi stula group. Fistula grades were compared using the Chi-square test and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Post-hoc comparison of hospital costs for various fi stula grades was made using Dunn's test with Bonferonni adjustment. APvalue less than 0.05 was considered statistically signif i cant.

Results

Over 54 months, we performed elective pancreatic resections in 102 patients; all the patients met the criteria for evaluation in the study. Their characteristics and histological fi ndings are summarized in Table 1. Sixty-six patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomies (30 classical Whipple and 36 Traverso-Longmire) and 36 underwent distal pancreatectomies, open (n=28) or laparoscopic (n=8). In two patients, the laparoscopic procedure was converted to the open procedure. Forty patients (39.2%) developed pancreatic fi stula according to the ISGPF def i nition and 62 (60.8%) had no fi stula. The fi stula rates are summarized in Table 2. The fi stula rates for pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy were 42.4% and 33.3%, respectively, but there was no signif i cant difference between them (P=0.4). Regarding grades B and C fi stula groups, the fi stula rates after pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal resection were 31.8% and 11.1%, respectively. Although the fi stula which appeared after pancreaticoduodenectomy tended to be more severe, the difference was not statistically signif i cant.

Fifty-four patients (52.9%) had one or more complications. Twelve patients (11.8%) had complicationgrade I, 18 (17.6%) grade II, 13 (12.7%) grade III, and 5 (4.9%) grade IV. Regarding diagnosis, the most common complications, in addition to pancreatic fi stula, were of an infectious nature (14.7%), bleeding (9.8%), delayed gastric emptying (6.9%), cardiopulmonary complications (4.9%), bile leak (3.9%) and neurological complications (2.9%). The most common site of infections was the surgical wound (7.8%).

Table 1.Characteristics and histological fi ndings of patients

Table 2.Pancreatic fi stula rates after pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy (n, %)

Two patients died within 30 days of the procedure. Four other patients died in the postoperative period on the 35th, 40th, 58th and 89th day, respectively. Overall the in-hospital mortality was 5.9%. Four patients died as a result of grade C pancreatic fi stula and two patients died of other causes. The mortality of grade C fi stula was 50.0% (4/8).

Clinical consequences of pancreatic fi stula

We evaluated the clinical parameters associated with pancreatic fi stulae and complications. The median ICU stay was 4 days for patients with no fi stula, 3 days for patients with grade A fi stula, 6 days for grade B fi stula, and 24.5 days for grade C fi stula. The ICU stay for grade C fi stula was signif i cantly longer than that for the other groups (P<0.05). The median lengths of hospital stay for the no fi stula and grade A fi stula groups were comparable: 12.5 days (10-15) and 14 days (11.5-19.5), respectively. The median lengths of hospital stay for the grade B and C fi stula groups were 20 days (16-24) and 59 days (36-73), respectively. The hospital stay of patients with fi stula of grades B and C was signif i cantly longer than that of patients with no fi stula (P<0.001). The median hospital stay for patients with no complication and no fi stula was 11 days. Radiological interventions were performed in ten patients. Interventional angiography with embolization of hepatic artery aneurysm was performed twice in patients with bleeding due to a grade C pancreatic fi stula. Drainage of peripancreatic fl uid collections under CT guidance was performed in eight patients (7.8%), all of whom had grade B fi stula. Reoperations were performed in eight patients (7.8%), 5 out of the 8 were grade C fi stula, and the other 3 were due to postoperative bleeding.

Economic consequences of pancreatic fi stula

We evaluated the economic consequences of pancreatic fi stula of varying degrees of severity. The costs were calculated in Euros. As the two surgical procedures (pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy) are different, fi rst we calculated the costs of the treatment for both procedures separately. There were no statistical differences between pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomyfor either the no fi stula group or the grades A and B fi stula groups. This is the reason we performed further calculations of both procedures together. The economic parameters are summarized in Table 3. The median of total treatment costs increased between the grades A, B and C fi stula groups (P<0.001). Dunn's test with Bonferonni adjustment shows comparison of hospital costs for various fi stula grades. We evaluated the costs for grade C fi stula in detail; in the group of patients with grade C fi stula, the ICU costs represented 72.6% of the total treatment costs, which were more than the ICU costs in any other group and even more than the total hospital costs in the grade B fi stula group.

Table 3.Total hospital costs according to the ISGPF def i nition of pancreatic fi stula

The operating room costs for the no fi stula, grades A, and B fi stula groups were similar. Operating room costs were higher for patients with grade C fi stula due to the more frequent reoperations in this group. Our study did not include indirect costs such as lost work time or frequent transportation to and from the medical facility.

Discussion

The mortality of pancreatic resections has decreased in the past decades; however, the postoperative morbidity remains high.[6]The overall morbidity in our series was 52.9%. The most ominous postoperative complication is pancreatic fi stula, with a reported incidence of 10% to >30% even in high-volume centers.[8-11]The large amount of variation in incidence is due mainly to different def i nitions of pancreatic fi stula. The def i nitions are usually based on amylase concentration of drainage fl uid, volume, and duration of the drainage. Lowy et al[18]was the fi rst to use the term clinically signif i cant fi stula. They def i ned biochemical fi stula as secretion with a high amylase concentration that is asymptomatic and resolves spontaneously. The clinical fi stula was def i ned as secretion with a high amylase concentration, leukocytosis, fever, sepsis, and necessity to drain worrisome peripancreatic fl uid collections.

A broad and general def i nition of pancreatic fi stula was published by the ISGPF in 2005.[13]This def i nition is based on the clinical severity of the fi stula. It def i nes three grades of fi stula and can be used to correlate their clinical and economic consequences. Our study indicates that grade A fi stula has no clinical or economic consequences. However, it is important to identify and report patients with grade A pancreatic fi stula so that a uniform def i nition of pancreatic fi stula is maintained and the results of centers performing pancreatic surgery can be compared. The fi stula rate depends largely upon the def i nition of fi stula.[12]Yang et al[19]performed 31 pancreaticoduodenectomies. The reconstructions were made with "modif i ed Child pancreaticojejunostomy", and the authors claimed to have a zero fi stula rate. However, the fi stula def i nition was quite liberal: >50 mL of secretion per day with an amylase concentration of >1000 IU/L. Moreover, the authors did not report the postoperative morbidity. The ISGPF def i nition is stricter; fi stula is def i ned as any measurable volume of secretion with an amylase concentration greater than three times the upper limit of the serum concentration.

Our center is considered to be a medium-volume center; we perform approximately 20 pancreatic resections yearly on average. The fi stula rate at our center over the 54-month study period was 39.2%, which is higher than that in other centers. However, this high percentage is due in part to the strict def i nition of pancreatic fi stula by the ISGPF. With this def i nition, even high-volume centers can have pancreatic fi stula rate over 30%.[20]Of course, high-volume centers and experienced surgeons tend to have a lower pancreatic fi stula rate.[21]There are only a few reports of pancreatic fi stula rates in medium- and low-volume centers. Cunningham et al[22]reported excellent results with a low mortality rate following pancreatic resections at a low-volume center; however, the pancreatic fi stula rate was not described.

Placement of intra-abdominal drains is a common practice in our department. A drain was always placed near the pancreaticojejuno anastomosis in cases of pancreaticoduodenectomy or near the pancreatic remnant in cases of distal pancreatectomy. However, it did not prevent the formation of an intra-abdominal fl uid collection, and CT guided drainage was necessary in 8 patients (7.8%) in our study, which is comparable to the 10% described in another large series.[23]

The incidence of pancreatic fi stula after pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy was similar in several studies.[20,24]Our data were consistent with those of other studies. The pancreatic fi stula rate for open and laparoscopic pancreatectomy was also comparable; although this calculation is underpowered, it is in concordance with a recent review.[25]Nevertheless, the clinical signif i cance of pancreatic fi stula after pancreaticoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy could be different. Sauvanet et al[26]suggested that pancreatic fi stula originating from pancreaticoenteric anastomosis seems to have a worse prognosis than those originating from a pancreatic remnant. This may be due to the activation of pancreatic juice by enterokinase, which is a necessary mechanism that stimulates the proteoclastic activity of various pancreatic enzymes.[27]This process may contribute to the differences between pancreatic fi stulae after operations that require enteric reconstructions (pancreaticoduodenectomy and central pancreatic resection) and those that do not (distal pancreatectomy and enucleation). Pratt et al[20]suggested that clinically relevant fi stulae after pancreaticoduodenectomy require more aggressive management in intensive care settings compared to those that occur after distal resections. Surgical exploration, when indicated, is more often urgent. On the other hand, fi stulae that occur after distal resections often require prolonged drainage of intra-abdominal collections and multiple hospital readmissions, usually for image-guided percutaneous drainage.

Several previous studies[28,29]analyzed the cost of pancreatic fi stula treatment. Holbrook et al[28]reported that hospital costs increased by 76% due to postoperative complications. However, they did not analyze increases in cost due specif i cally to pancreatic fi stula. Another study included 66 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy.[29]Pancreatic fi stula was def i ned as a daily output of at least 30 mL of amylase-rich fl uid (three times the serum concentration) from the surgically placed drain on day 5 after surgery. Other pancreatic leak-related complications included a sterile collection, an abscess, and wound disruption. According to the ISGPF def i nition of pancreatic fi stula, those complications would also be considered pancreatic fi stula. The authors did not distinguish between transient and clinically relevant pancreatic fi stulae. Overall, 33% patients had complications attributed to pancreatic leak. The CII in the pancreatic fi stula group was double that of the non-f i stula group. The main disadvantage of Rodríguez's study was that it did not use the ISGPF def i nition of fi stula.[29]

Pratt et al[20]analyzed 256 consecutive pancreatic resections and compared the differences between pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and central resections. The authors used the ISGPF def i nition of fi stula and found that the overall pancreatic fi stula rate was 32.4%. The pancreatic fi stula rates afterpancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy were similar. The pancreatic fi stula rate after central pancreatectomy reached 100%. In accordance with the results of Sauvanet et al,[26]the fi stulae that occurred after distal resections were more often biochemical and had no clinical consequences. The authors claimed that the hospital costs were similar between grades B and C fi stulae after distal pancreatectomy and the impacts of grades B and C fi stulae after distal pancreatectomy were equivalent. However, only three patients had grade C fi stula after distal pancreatectomy; this small number could have led to type II error. A similar study was published by the same group in 2007.[14]It included 176 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies; these were the same patients as in the previous study, and thus the results were similar. Recently, a large study[15]reported the results of 755 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy over a period of 10 years. The overall pancreatic fi stula rate was 19.5%, and the authors reported higher hospital costs for clinically signif i cant pancreatic fi stula.

The total hospital costs for all of the patients in our study were lower than those in other published studies; this is due to the political and economic differences among individual countries, and to differences in the respective health care systems. Accurate comparisons of the total hospital costs are also diff i cult because of fl uctuating money exchange rates. Our study validated the clinical and economic signif i cance of the ISGPF pancreatic fi stula classif i cation in a medium-volume pancreatic surgery center. In our group of patients, the cost of treatment escalated as the fi stula severity increased.

Calculating the costs of the treatment for both procedures together could be considered a limitation of the study. However, the costs for both procedures were comparable for the no fi stula group and for the fi stula group as well. The number of patients in our study is lower than in other mentioned studies. Nevertheless, our center is considered medium-volume and one of the aims of the study is to validate the ISGPF def i nition in a medium-volume pancreatic surgery center.

In conclusion, a standardized def i nition of pancreatic fi stula is important for evaluating the rate of this postoperative complication. It allows for comparisons to be made among different centers and even among individual surgeons. The ISGPF def i nition has been validated in several studies; thus, it should be used in all studies reporting the results of pancreatic surgery. The grading recommended by the ISGPF is useful for comparing the clinical severity of fi stula and for analyzing the economic and clinical consequences of pancreatic fi stula. Pancreatic fi stula prolongs the hospital stay and increases the cost of treatment; these increases are progressively greater with increasing fi stula severity. Although the total hospital cost is different in various countries, the increase in the hospital cost index noted in our study is similar to those of previously published studies. Thus, this cost index is applicable to pancreatic surgery centers in other regions and countries.

Contributors:ČF proposed the study and wrote the fi rst draft. JB and ŠZ analyzed the data. FA provided advice on medical aspects. All authors contributed to the design and interpretation of the study. ČF is the guarantor.

Funding:This work was supported by grants from the project for conceptual development of research organization 00179906 and IGA NS 9998-4 from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic.

Ethical approval:Not needed.

Competing interest:No benef i ts in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

1 Pavlidis TE, Pavlidis ET, Sakantamis AK. Current opinion on lymphadenectomy in pancreatic cancer surgery. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2011;10:21-25.

2 Wagner M, Redaelli C, Lietz M, Seiler CA, Friess H, Büchler MW. Curative resection is the single most important factor determining outcome in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg 2004;91:586-594.

3 Büchler MW, Wagner M, Schmied BM, Uhl W, Friess H, Z'graggen K. Changes in morbidity after pancreatic resection: toward the end of completion pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 2003;138:1310-1315.

4 Hua YP, Liang LJ, Peng BG, Li SQ, Huang JF. Pancreatic head carcinoma: clinical analysis of 189 cases. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2009;8:79-84.

5 Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Sohn TA, Lillemoe KD, Pitt HA, Talamini MA, et al. Six hundred fi fty consecutive pancreatico duodenectomies in the 1990s: pathology, complications, and outcomes. Ann Surg 1997;226:248-260.

6 DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M, Cunningham SC, Cameron JL, Yeo CJ, et al. Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: A novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 2006;244:931-939.

7 Gouma DJ, van Geenen RC, van Gulik TM, de Haan RJ, de Wit LT, Busch OR, et al. Rates of complications and death after pancreaticoduodenectomy: risk factors and the impact of hospital volume. Ann Surg 2000;232:786-795.

8 Callery MP, Pratt WB, Vollmer CM Jr. Prevention and management of pancreatic fi stula. J Gastrointest Surg 2009; 13:163-173.

9 Zhu B, Geng L, Ma YG, Zhang YJ, Wu MC. Combined invagination and duct-to-mucosa techniques with modif i cations: a new method of pancreaticojejunal anastomosis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2011;10:422-427.

10 Butturini G, Daskalaki D, Molinari E, Scopelliti F, Casarotto A, Bassi C. Pancreatic fi stula: def i nition and current problems. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2008;15:247-251.

11 Shrikhande SV, D'Souza MA. Pancreatic fi stula after pancreatectomy: evolving def i nitions, preventive strategies and modern management. World J Gastroenterol 2008;14: 5789-5796.

12 Bassi C, Butturini G, Molinari E, Mascetta G, Salvia R, Falconi M, et al. Pancreatic fi stula rate after pancreatic resection. The importance of def i nitions. Dig Surg 2004;21:54-59.

13 Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fi stula: an international study group (ISGPF) def i nition. Surgery 2005;138:8-13.

14 Pratt WB, Maithel SK, Vanounou T, Huang ZS, Callery MP, Vollmer CM Jr. Clinical and economic validation of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) classif i cation scheme. Ann Surg 2007;245:443-451.

15 Daskalaki D, Butturini G, Molinari E, Crippa S, Pederzoli P, Bassi C. A grading system can predict clinical and economic outcomes of pancreatic fi stula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: results in 755 consecutive patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2011;396:91-98.

16 Asensio JA, Petrone P, Roldán G, Kuncir E, Demetriades D. Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a rare procedure for the management of complex pancreaticoduodenal injuries. J Am Coll Surg 2003;197:937-942.

17 Kleeff J, Diener MK, Z'graggen K, Hinz U, Wagner M, Bachmann J, et al. Distal pancreatectomy: risk factors for surgical failure in 302 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 2007;245: 573-582.

18 Lowy AM, Lee JE, Pisters PW, Davidson BS, Fenoglio CJ, Stanford P, et al. Prospective, randomized trial of octreotide to prevent pancreatic fi stula after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignant disease. Ann Surg 1997;226:632-641.

19 Yang YL, Xu XP, Wu GQ, Yue SQ, Dou KF. Prevention of pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy by modif i ed Child pancreaticojejunostomy. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2008;7:426-429.

20 Pratt W, Maithel SK, Vanounou T, Callery MP, Vollmer CM Jr. Postoperative pancreatic fi stulas are not equivalent after proximal, distal, and central pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10:1264-1279.

21 Schmidt CM, Turrini O, Parikh P, House MG, Zyromski NJ, Nakeeb A, et al. Effect of hospital volume, surgeon experience, and surgeon volume on patient outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-institution experience. Arch Surg 2010;145:634-640.

22 Cunningham JD, O'Donnell N, Starker P. Surgical outcomes following pancreatic resection at a low-volume community hospital: do all patients need to be sent to a regional cancer center? Am J Surg 2009;198:227-230.

23 Conlon KC, Labow D, Leung D, Smith A, Jarnagin W, Coit DG, et al. Prospective randomized clinical trial of the value of intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatic resection. Ann Surg 2001;234:487-494.

24 Balcom JH 4th, Rattner DW, Warshaw AL, Chang Y, Fernandez-del Castillo C. Ten-year experience with 733 pancreatic resections: changing indications, older patients, and decreasing length of hospitalization. Arch Surg 2001;136: 391-398.

25 Jusoh AC, Ammori BJ. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies. Surg Endosc 2012;26:904-913.

26 Sauvanet A, Partensky C, Sastre B, Gigot JF, Fagniez PL, Tuech JJ, et al. Medial pancreatectomy: a multi-institutional retrospective study of 53 patients by the French Pancreas Club. Surgery 2002;132:836-843.

27 Seth TN. The Activation of Pancreatic Juice by Enterokinase. Biochem J 1924;18:1401-1416.

28 Holbrook RF, Hargrave K, Traverso LW. A prospective cost analysis of pancreatoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 1996;171:508-511.

29 Rodríguez JR, Germes SS, Pandharipande PV, Gazelle GS, Thayer SP, Warshaw AL, et al. Implications and cost of pancreatic leak following distal pancreatic resection. Arch Surg 2006;141:361-366.

Received December 19, 2011

Accepted after revisionMarch 18, 2013

AuthorAff i liations:Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Hradec Králové, Sokolská 581, 500 05 Hradec Králové, Czech Republic (Čečka F, Jon B, Šubrt Z and Ferko A); Department of Field Surgery, Military Health Science Faculty, Hradec Králové, Defence University Brno, Třebešská 1575, 500 01 Hradec Králové, Czech Republic (Šubrt Z)

Filip Čečka, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Hradec Králové, Sokolská 581, 500 05 Hradec Králové, Czech Republic (Tel: 420-737-163931; Fax: 420-495-832026; Email: fi lip.cecka@seznam.cz)

© 2013, Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. All rights reserved.

10.1016/S1499-3872(13)60084-3