Updated Alternative Fistula Risk Score (ua-FRS) to Include Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy

2019 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy H. Mungroop ◽  
Sjors Klompmaker ◽  
Ulrich F. Wellner ◽  
Ewout W. Steyerberg ◽  
Andrea Coratti ◽  
...  
HPB ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S118-S119
Author(s):  
U.Y. Panni ◽  
S. Srinivasa ◽  
A. Khan ◽  
C.A. Woolsey ◽  
G. Williams ◽  
...  

HPB ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S271
Author(s):  
U. Panni ◽  
S. Srinivasa ◽  
R. Fields ◽  
M. Doyle ◽  
W. Chapman ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 105 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 559-563
Author(s):  
Seungmin Lee ◽  
Kwang Yeol Paik

Background The aim of this study is to examine whether pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) or pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) is the better reconstructive method to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) according to the fistula risk. Methods An institutional database was reviewed for patients undergoing PD between January 2008 and August 2019. A total of 159 patients were stratified into 4 groups according to the Clinical Risk Score-Pancreatic Fistula. POPF according to 4 risk groups was compared between PJ and PG. Results Of the 159 patients, 82 underwent PG (51.6%) and 77 underwent PJ (48.4%) reconstruction. POPF rate was 17.1% (n = 14) in the PG group and 12.9% (n = 10) in the PJ group (P = 0.51). POPF rates were not different in intermediate, low, and negligible risks between 2 reconstructive methods. In the high-risk group (n = 47), there were 4 POPFs (22.2%) in PJ group and 9 (31.0%) in the PG group, respectively (P = 0.74). Conclusion In PD, there was no superior method of reconstruction with regard to POPF, even in high-risk glands.


HPB ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. S265
Author(s):  
Boram Lee ◽  
Yoo-Seok Yoon ◽  
Chang Moo Kang ◽  
Ho Kyoung Hwang ◽  
Ho-Seong Han ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document