Comparison of Wirsung-jejunal duct-to-mucosa and dunking technique for pancreatojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int

Unita di Chirurgia-Dipartimento di Fisiopatologia Clinica, Universita degli Studi di Firenze, Viale GB Morgagni, 85, 50134-Firenze, Italy.

Published: August 2005

AI Article Synopsis

  • Pancreato-enteric reconstruction after pancreatoduodenectomy still has high complication rates, and it's unclear which type of anastomosis (WJ or DPJ) is safer.
  • A study reviewed 23 patients who underwent either Wirsung-jejunal duct-to-mucosa or "dunking" pancreato-jejunal anastomosis over three years, finding high overall complication rates in both groups.
  • No significant differences in anastomotic failure rates were found between the two techniques, suggesting that WJ may be a good option for patients with a dilated duct and other specific conditions.

Article Abstract

Background: Pancreato-enteric reconstruction after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is still a source of debate because of the high incidence of complications. Among the various types of pancreato-jejunostomies we don't know yet which is the best in terms of anastomotic failure and related complications rates. Wirsung-jejunal duct-to-mucosa anastomosis (WJ) and "dunking" pancreato-jejunal anastomosis (DPJ) are the two most used ones worldwide but conflicting results are reported. To determine which is the safer anastomosis and to define when an anastomosis should be preferred, we retrospectively reviewed two groups of patients who underwent WJ or DPJ.

Methods: Twenty-three patients underwent PD with WJ (n = 17) with dilated (WJD) (n = 9) or not-dilated Wirsung's duct (WJND) (n = 8) or with a DPJ (n = 6) over a 3-year period at a single institution.

Results: The complications rate was high in all groups of patients (33.3% in WJD, 37.5% in WJND and 66.7% in DPJ). A pancreatic fistula developed in one patient in each group (11.1% in WJD, 12.5% in WJND and 16.7% in DPJ). All these patients were managed conservatively. Anastomotic disruption took place in the WJ patients especially in the WJND group (n = 2) compared to the WJD (n = 1) (25% vs. 11.1%) or DPJ groups (0%): these three patients required a re-operation. Overall, the anastomotic defects were higher in patients who underwent WJND (37.5%), compared to WJD (22.2%) and to DPJ (16.7%). However, no statistical differences were found among the groups. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) and total parenteral nutrition (TPN) along with anastomotic defects were responsible for a prolonged hospital stay.

Conclusions: Our results were not able to demonstrate any statistical difference between the two different techniques in preventing anastomotic failure. WJ can represent a valid choice in case of a dilated duct and a firm, fibrotic enlarged gland that could not be properly invaginated in a small jejunal loop. DGE may occur in those patients who experienced an anastomotic failure and required a TPN regimen with a prolonged hospital stay.

Download full-text PDF

Source

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

anastomotic failure
12
patients underwent
12
wirsung-jejunal duct-to-mucosa
8
patients
8
groups patients
8
compared wjd
8
anastomotic defects
8
prolonged hospital
8
anastomotic
6
dpj
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!