The prognostic value of external vs internal pancreatic duct stents after pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with FRS ≥ 4: a retrospective cohort study.

Affiliation

Jiang Y(#)(1), Chen Q(#)(2), Shao Y(3), Gao Z(1), Jin M(1), Gao B(1), Zhou B(4), Yan S(5).
Author information:
(1)Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 88 Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, China.
(2)Cancer Institute
(Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Intervention, China National Ministry of Education, Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Medical Sciences, Zhejiang Province, China), The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
(3)Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
(4)Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 88 Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, China. [Email]
(5)Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 88 Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, China. [Email]
(#)Contributed equally

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of external vs internal pancreatic duct stents after pancreaticoduodenectomy remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of external and internal stents using the Fistula Risk Score system with regard to the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. METHODS: A total of 382 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy with duct to mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy were retrospectively enrolled from January 2015 to October 2019. The receiver operating characteristic curve was performed for subgroup analysis of the patients at different levels of risk for pancreatic fistula. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in terms of pancreatic fistula or other postoperative complications. According to the receiver operating characteristic curve threshold of 3.5, 172 patients with a Fistula Risk Score ≥ 4 and 210 patients with a Fistula Risk Score < 4 were divided into separate groups. The number of valid cases was insufficient to support the subsequent research in patients with a Fistula Risk Score < 4. In patients with a Fistula Risk Score ≥ 4, the use of an external pancreatic duct stent was significantly more effective than the use of an internal stent, especially with regard to the risk for pancreatic fistula (Grade C) (P = 0.039), at ameliorating the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (P = 0.019). Additionally, the incidence of lymphatic leakage was significantly higher in the external stent group compared with the internal stent group (P = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with internal stents, the use of an external stent could reduce the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula in patients with a Fistula Risk Score ≥ 4. More large-scale prospective clinical trials are warranted to further clarify our results.