Pancreaticojejunostomy: Does the technique matter? A randomized trial. Issue 3 (16th October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Singh, Anand N.; Pal, Sujoy; Mangla, Vivek; Kilambi, Ragini; George, Joseph; Dash, Nihar R.; Chattopadhyay, Tushar K.; Sahni, Peush
• Is Part Of: Journal of surgical oncology. Volume 117:Issue 3(2018)
• Page Start: 389
• Page End: 396
• Publication Date: 2017-10-16
• Subjects: duct‐to‐mucosa -- dunking -- invagination -- pancreaticoduodenectomy -- pancreaticoenteric -- pancreaticojejunostomy -- pancreatoduodenectomy -- whipple; Cancer -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/jso.24873
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-4790

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Despite a large number of studies, the ideal technique of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains debatable. We compared the two most common techniques of PJ (duct‐to‐mucosa and dunking) in a randomized trial. Methods: This open‐label randomized trial was done at a tertiary care center from January 2009 to October 2015. Patients with resectable periampullary tumours with a pancreatic duct diameter ≥2 mm, requiring PD were randomly assigned to one of the two techniques using computer generated random numbers. The primary outcome was postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate and secondary outcomes were frequency of other postoperative complications. Results: A total of 193 patients were randomized and analyzed (intention‐to‐treat analysis), 97 in duct‐to‐mucosa and 96 in dunking group. Both groups were comparable for baseline demographic and clinical profiles. The incidence of POPF in the entire study group was 23.8%. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (24.7% vs 22.9%, P = 0.71). Similarly, the incidence of grades B and C (clinically significant) POPF was comparable (16.5% vs 13.5%, P = 0.57). Both groups were comparable with respect to the secondary outcomes. Discussion: The duct‐to‐mucosa technique of PJ after PD is not superior to the dunking technique with respect to POPF rate. (CTRI/2010/091/000531)