Method of forming a pancreatogastric anastomosis after pancreatoduodenal resection

Aim. To evaluate the reproducibility and safety of the developed pancreatogastric anastomosis with various surgical approaches during pancreatoduodenectomy.

Materials and methods. The experience of surgical treatment of 47 patients with malignant tumours of the periampullary zone, who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy, was considered. The proposed variant of anastomose was performed to 14 (29.8%) patients: in 7 cases with a minimally invasive approach to perform pancreatoduodenectomy; and in 7 cases with an open approach. To compare retrospectively 33 (70.2%) patients who underwent pancreatogastric anastomosis according to the Bassi technique: 9 – with minimally invasive surgery, 24 – with open surgery. The frequency of pancreatic fistulas, the number of repeated interferences, and hospital mortality were taken into account.

Results. A significant advantage of the new method of forming an anastomosis in the duration of the operation was noted in comparison with the Bassi technique. There were no statistically significant differences in blood loss while various types of anastomoses (p > 0.05). When using the proposed technique, the formation of pancreatic fistulas was not revealed. The development of pancreatic fistula was observed in 4 (16.7%) patients after open surgery and in 7 (77.8%) patients after minimally invasive Bassi anastomose formation. Reoperations were performed after open surgery in 3 (12.5%) cases and in 4 (44.4%) cases of minimally invasive surgery according to the Bassi technique. There were 2 (22.2%) deaths in the minimally invasive group.

Conclusion. The proposed pancreatogastric anastomosis is applicable in clinical practice. This method allows to create relatively fast and less challenging anastomosis, including with a minimally invasive approach. The use of this technique makes it possible to reduce mortality and postoperative complications in patients with a “complex” pancreas.

1. Lubyanskiy V.G., Seroshtanov V.V. The results of duodenum-preserving resections of the pancreas in chronic pancreatitis using the technology of sealing the pancreatic-intestinal anastomosis. Acta Biomedica Scientifica. 2019; 4 (2): 122–126. https://doi.org/10.29413/ABS.2019-4.2.17 (In Russian)

2. Shabunin A.V., Karpov A.A., Kizhaev E.V., Bedin V.V., Tavobilov M.M., Paklina O.V., Setdikova G.R. Combined surgical treatment of pancreatic head cancer. Annaly khirurgicheskoy gepatologii = Annals of HPB Surgery. 2018; 23 (3): 8–13. https://doi.org/10.16931/1995-5464.201838-13 (In Russian)

3. Lin C., Dai H., Hong X., Pang H., Wang X., Xu P., Jiang J., Wu W., Zhao Y. The prognostic impact of primary tumor resection in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with synchronous multifocal liver metastases. Pancreatology. 2018; 18 (5): 608– 614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pan.2018.04.014. PMID: 29731245

4. Egiev V.N. Comparison of pancreatodigestive anastomoses in proximal resection of the pancreas (review). Annaly khirurgicheskoy gepatologii = Annals of HPB Surgery. 2013; 18 (3): 33–39. (In Russian)

5. McMillan M.T., Zureikat A.H., Hogg M.E., Kowalsky S.J., Zeh H.J., Sprys M.H., Vollmer C.M. Jr. A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic vs open pancreatoduodenectomy on incidence of pancreatic fistula. JAMA Surg. 2017; 152 (4): 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4755

6. Ahtanin E.A., Kriger A.G. Causes and prevention of pancreatic fistulas after pancreas resection. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery = Khirurgiya. Zhurnal imeni N.I. Pirogova. 2014; 5: 79–83. PMID: 25033493. (In Russian)

7. Kriger A.G., Berelavichus S.V., Smirnov A.V., Gorin D.S., Akhtanin E.A. Comparative results of open robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery = Khirurgiya. Zhurnal imeni N.I. Pirogova. 2015; 1: 23–29. https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia2015123-29 (In Russian)

8. Khatkov I.E., Tsvirkun V.V., Izrailov R.E., Vasnev O.S., Baychorov M.E., Tyutyunnik P.S., Khisamov A.A., Andrianov A.V., Mikhnevich M.V. Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: results evolution over 215 procedures. Annaly khirurgicheskoy gepatologii = Annals of HPB Surgery. 2018; 23 (1): 47–54. https://doi.org/10.16931/1995-5464.2018-1-47-54 (In Russian)

9. Gorin D.S., Kriger A.G., Galkin G.V., Kalinin D.V., Glotov A.V., Kaldarov A.R., Galchina Y.S., Berelavichus S.V. Predicting of pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery = Khirurgiya. Zhurnal imeni N.I. Pirogova. 2020; 7: 61–67. https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia202007161 (In Russian)

10. Strasberg S.M., Drebin J.A., Mokadam N.A., Green D.W., Jones K.I., Ehlers J.P., Linehan D. Prospective trial of a blood supply based technique of pancreaticojejunostomy: effect of anastomotic failure in the Whipple procedure. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2002; 194 (6): 746–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1072-7515(02)01202-4

11. Bassi С., Butturini G., Salvia R., Grippa S., Falconi M., Pederzoli P. Open pancreaticogastrostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a pilot study. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2006; 10 (7): 1072–1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gassur.2006.02.003

12. Popov A.Y., Lishchishin V.Y., Lishenko A.N., Petrovsky A.N., Baryshev A.G. Sposob formirovaniya pankreatogastroanastomoza pri robot-assistirovannoj i laparoskopicheskoj pankreatoduodenal`noj rezekcziyakh [Method of forming pancreatogastroanastomosis with robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenal resections]. Bulletin of inventions. 2021; 3: 3. (In Russian)

13. Grjibovski A.M. Data envelopment analysis (independent observations). Ekologiya cheloveka (Human Ecology). 2008; 6: 58–68. (In Russian)

14. Popov A.Y., Baryshev A.G., Bykov M.I., Petrovsky A.N., Lishchishin V.Y., Vagin I.V., Shchava V.V., Porkhanov V.A. Outcomes of minimally invasive biliary decompression in obstructive jaundice. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery = Khirurgiya. Zhurnal imeni N.I. Pirogova. 2018; 12: 50–56. https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia201812150 (In Russian)

15. Adam M.A., Thomas S., Youngwirth L., Pappas T., Roman S.A., Sosa J.A. Defining ahospital volume threshold for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in the United States. JAMA Surg. 2017; 152 (4): 336–342. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4753

16. Karim S.A.M., Abdulla K.S., Abdulkarim Q.H., Rahim F.H. The outcomes and complications of pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple procedure): cross-sectional study. Int. J. Surg. 2018; 52: 383–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.01.041

17. Masiak-Segit W., Rawicz-Pruszyński K., Skórzewska M., Polkowski W.P. Surgical treatment of pancreatic cancer. Pol. Przegl. Chir. 2018; 90 (2): 45–53. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0011.7493

18. Kriger A.G., Karmazanovsky G.G., Berelavichus S.V., Gorin D.S., Kaldarov A.R., Panteleev V.I., Dvukhzhilov M.V., Kalinin D.V., Glotov A.V., Zektser V.Y. Duodenopancreatectomy for pancreatic tumors – pros and cons. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery = Khirurgiya. Zhurnal imeni N.I. Pirogova. 2019; 12: 28–36. https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia201912128 (In Russian)

19. Yildirim O.Y., Özer N. Effect of anastomosis technique on pancreatic fistula formation in proximal pancreatico duodenectomy. J. Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak. 2020; 30 (5): 480–484. https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2020.05.480. PMID: 32580842.