RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Recent studies support early drain removal after pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with a drain fluid amylase on postoperative day 1 (DFA1) level of ≤5,000. The use of DFA1 to guide drain management is increasingly common among pancreatic surgeons; however, the benefit of checking additional drain fluid amylases beyond DFA1 is less known. We sought to determine whether a change in drain fluid amylase (ΔDFA) is a more reliable predictor of clinically relevant postoperative fistula than DFA1 alone. METHODS: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Plan, pancreaticoduodenectomy patients with intraoperative drain placement, known DFA1, highest recorded drain fluid amylase value on postoperative day 2 to 5 (DFA2nd), day of drain removal, and clinically relevant postoperative fistula status were reviewed. Logistic models compared the predictive performance of DFA1 alone versus DFA1 + ΔDFA. RESULTS: A total of 2,417 patients with an overall clinically relevant postoperative fistula rate of 12.6% were analyzed. On multivariable regression, clinical predictors for clinically relevant postoperative fistula included body mass index, steroid use, operative time, and gland texture. These variables were used to develop model 1 (DFA1 alone) and model 2 (DFA1 + ΔDFA). Model 2 outperformed model 1 in predicting the risk of clinically relevant postoperative fistula. According to model 2 predictions, the risk of clinically relevant postoperative fistula increased with any rise in drain fluid amylase, regardless of whether the DFA1 was above or below 5,000 U/L. The risk of clinically relevant postoperative fistula significantly decreased with any drop in drain fluid amylase, with an odds reduction of approximately 50% corresponding with a 70% decrease in drain fluid amylase (P < .001). A risk calculator was developed using DFA1 and a secondary DFA value in conjunction with other clinical predictors for clinically relevant postoperative fistula. CONCLUSION: Clinically relevant postoperative fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy is more accurately predicted by DFA1 and ΔDFA versus DFA1 in isolation. We developed a novel risk calculator to provide an individualized approach to drain management after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Assuntos
Fístula Pancreática , Pancreaticoduodenectomia , Humanos , Pancreaticoduodenectomia/efeitos adversos , Fístula Pancreática/diagnóstico , Fístula Pancreática/epidemiologia , Fístula Pancreática/etiologia , Pancreatectomia , Drenagem , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/diagnóstico , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Amilases , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of postoperative 30-day complications between laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD)-either LPD or RPD-is noninferior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of operative outcomes. However, a direct comparison of the two minimally invasive approaches has not been rigorously performed. METHODS: Patients who underwent MI-PD were abstracted from the 2014 to 2019 pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons National Sample Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) dataset. Optimal outcome was defined as absence of postoperative mortality, serious complication, percutaneous drainage, reoperation, and prolonged length of stay (75th percentile, 11 days) with no readmission. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare optimal outcome of RPD and LPD. RESULTS: A total of 1540 MI-PDs were identified between 2014 and 2019, of which 885 (57%) were RPD and 655 (43%) were LPD. The rate of RPD cases/year significantly increased from 2.4% to 8.4% ( P =0.008) from 2014 to 2019, while LPD remained unchanged. Similarly, the rate of optimal outcome for RPD increased during the study period from 48.2% to 57.8% ( P <0.001) but significantly decreased for LPD (53.5% to 44.9%, P <0.001). During 2018-2019, RPD outcomes surpassed LPD for any complication [odds ratio (OR)=0.58, P =0.004], serious complications (OR=0.61, P =0.011), and optimal outcome (OR=1.78, P =0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RPD adoption increased compared with LPD and was associated with decreased overall complications, serious complications, and increased optimal outcome compared with LPD in 2018-2019.
Assuntos
Laparoscopia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos , Humanos , Pancreaticoduodenectomia/efeitos adversos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos/efeitos adversos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Tempo de Internação , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Laparoscopia/efeitos adversosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop risk predictive models of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and major adverse limb events (MALE) after bypass surgery for aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) and to compare their performances with a 5-Factor Frailty Index. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2012-2017 Procedure Targeted Aortoiliac (Open) Participant Use Data Files were queried to identify all patients who had elective bypass for AIOD: femorofemoral bypass, aortofemoral bypass, and axillofemoral bypass (AXB). Outcomes assessed included mortality, major morbidity, and MALE within 30 days postoperatively. Major morbidity was defined as pneumonia, unplanned intubation, ventilator support for >48 hours, progressive or acute renal failure, cerebrovascular accident, cardiac arrest, or myocardial infarction. Demographics, comorbidities, procedure type, and laboratory values were considered for inclusion in the risk predictive models. Logistic regression models for mortality, major morbidity and MALE were developed. The discriminative ability of these models (C-indices) were compared with that of the 5-Factor Modified Frailty Index (mFI-5): a general frailty tool determined from diabetes, functional status, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of congestive heart failure, and hypertension. Calculators were derived using the most significant variables for each of the three risk predictive models. RESULTS: A total of 2612 cases (mean age 65.0, 60% male) were identified, of which 1149 (44.0%) were femorofemoral bypass, 1138 (43.6%) were aortofemoral bypass, and 325 (12.4%) were axillofemoral bypass. Overall, the rates of mortality, major morbidity, and MALE were 2.0%, 8.5%, and 4.9%, respectively. Twenty preoperative risk factors were considered for incorporation in the risk tools. Apart from procedure type, age was the most statistically significant predictor of both mortality and morbidity. Preoperative anemia and critical limb ischemia were the most significant predictors of MALE. All three constructed models demonstrated significantly better discriminative ability (P < .001) on the outcomes of interest as compared with the mFI-5. CONCLUSIONS: Our models outperformed the mFI-5 in predicting 30-day mortality, major morbidity, and adverse limb events in patients with AIOD undergoing elective bypass surgery. Calculators were created using the most statistically significant variables to help calculate individual patient's postoperative risks and allow for better informed consent and risk-adjusted comparison of provider outcomes.