Acinar cells of the pancreas as an independent predictor of the development of postoperative pancreatic fistula: A review

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

详细

Analysis of data published in the modern literature on the role of the number of functioning acinar cells of the pancreas as a prognostic marker of the development of pancreatic fistula. The search for sources was carried out in the systems Clinicaltrials.gov, PubMed, Medline, NCCN, Scopus, Elibrary. In writing the literature review, 52 sources published from 2004 to 2022 were used. Included are studies reflecting the importance of functioning acinar cells at the edge of pancreatic resection, as well as other factors associated with the development of pancreatic fistula and other post-resection complications. A large number of acinar cells (>40%) and a low collagen content (<15%) in the edge of pancreatic resection significantly correlates with the development of pancreatic fistula. The content of adipose tissue in the edge of pancreatic resection showed no connection with the development of pancreatic fistula and other complications after surgery. Palpatory assessment of the structure of the pancreatic parenchyma is subjective and can lead to erroneous interpretation and adoption of inadequate tactics of preventive measures. Intraoperative counting of acinuses at the edge of pancreatic resection is easy to use, while not yielding to more complex methods for assessing the risk of post-resection complications and can be recommended as a routine method for predicting the occurrence of pancreatic fistula

作者简介

Danil Podluzhny

Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology

Email: dr.podluzhny@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7375-3378

Cand. Sci. (Med.)

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

Alexey Kotelnikov

Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology

Email: kotelnikovag@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2811-0549

D. Sci. (Med.), Prof.

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

Igor Sagaydak

Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology

Email: igor_sagaidak@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7659-3365

D. Sci. (Med.)

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

Alexander Polyakov

Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology

Email: Dr.alexp@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5348-5011

Cand. Sci. (Med.)

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

Nikolay Kudashkin

Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology

Email: dr.kudashkin@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0504-585X

Cand. Sci. (Med.)

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

Peter Arkhiri

Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology

Email: arhiri@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6791-2923

Cand. Sci. (Med.)

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

Bairamali Sakibov

Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology

Email: bairamali_10@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7184-8357

Graduate Student

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

Maryam Tamrazova

Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology

Email: maryamtamrazova@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8824-1137

Resident

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

Omar Egenov

Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: egenov.omar@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8681-7905

Cand. Sci. (Med.)

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

参考

  1. Kleeff J, Diener MK, Z’graggen K, et al. Distal pancreatectomy: risk factors for surgical failure in 302 consecutive cases. Ann Surg. 2007;245(4):573-82. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000251438.43135.fb
  2. Bassi C, Butturini G, Molinari E, et al. Pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatic resection. The importance of definitions. Dig Surg. 2004;21(1):54-9. doi: 10.1159/000075943
  3. Ахтанин Е.А., Кригер А.Г. Причины возникновения и профилактика панкреатических свищей после резекционных операций на поджелудочной железе. Хирургия. Журнал им. Н.И. Пирогова. 2014;(5):79-83 [Akhtanin EA, Kriger AG. Causes and prevention of pancreatic fistulas after pancreas resection. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2014;(5):7983 (in Russian)].
  4. Čečka F, Jon B, Čermáková E, et al. Impact of postoperative complications on clinical and economic consequences in pancreatic surgery. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2016;90(1):21-8. doi: 10.4174/astr.2016.90.1.21
  5. Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, et al. A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(1):1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.09.002
  6. Giglio MC, Spalding DR, Giakoustidis A, et al. Meta-analysis of drain amylase content on postoperative day 1 as a predictor of pancreatic fistula following pancreatic resection. Br J Surg. 2016;103(4):328-36. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10090
  7. Connor S. Defining post-operative pancreatitis as a new pancreatic specific complication following pancreatic resection. HPB (Oxford). 2016;18(8):642-51. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2016.05.006
  8. Ansorge C, Regner S, Segersvärd R, Strömmer L. Early intraperitoneal metabolic changes and protease activation as indicators of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99(1):104-11. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7730
  9. Motoi F, Egawa S, Rikiyama T, et al. Randomized clinical trial of external stent drainage of the pancreatic duct to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticojejunostomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99(4):524-31. doi: 10.1002/bjs.8654
  10. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al. International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138(1):8-13. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.05.001
  11. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, et al. International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After. Surgery. 2017;161(3):584-91. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014
  12. Laaninen M, Bläuer M, Vasama K, et al. The risk for immediate postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy is increased by high frequency of acinar cells and decreased by prevalent fibrosis of the cut edge of pancreas. Pancreas. 2012;41(6):957-61. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e3182480b81
  13. Nahm CB, Brown KM, Townend PJ, et al. Acinar cell density at the pancreatic resection margin is associated with post-pancreatectomy pancreatitis and the development of postoperative pancreatic fistula. HPB (Oxford). 2018;20(5):432-40. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2017.11.003
  14. Nahm CB, Alzaabi S, Sahni S, et al. Increased postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after distal pancreatectomy compared with pancreatoduodenectomy is attributable to a difference in acinar scores. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2021;28(6):533-41. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.934
  15. Umezaki N, Hashimoto D, Nakagawa S, et al. Number of acinar cells at the pancreatic stump predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Today. 2018;48(8):790-5. doi: 10.1007/s00595-018-1656-5
  16. Teränen V, Rinta-Kiikka I, Holli-Helenius K, et al. Perioperative acinar cell count method works well in the prediction of postoperative pancreatic fistula and other postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Pancreatology. 2021;21(2):487-93. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2021.01.005
  17. De Carlis LG, Sguinzi R, Ferla F, et al. Pancreatoduodenectomy: Risk Factors of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula. Hepatogastroenterology. 2014;61(132):1124-32.
  18. Braga M, Capretti G, Pecorelli N, et al. A prognostic score to predict major complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2011;254(5):702-7. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31823598fb
  19. Kantor O, Talamonti MS, Pitt HA, et al. Using the NSQIP Pancreatic Demonstration Project to Derive a Modified Fistula Risk Score for Preoperative Risk Stratification in Patients Undergoing Pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224(5):816-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.01.054
  20. Mungroop TH, van Rijssen LB, van Klaveren D, et al. Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. Alternative Fistula Risk Score for Pancreatoduodenectomy (a-FRS): Design and International External Validation. Ann Surg. 2019;269(5):937-43. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002620
  21. Tranchart H, Gaujoux S, Rebours V, et al. Preoperative CT scan helps to predict the occurrence of severe pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2012;256(1):139-45. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318256c32c
  22. Schröder FF, de Graaff F, Bouman DE, et al. The Preoperative CT-Scan Can Help to Predict Postoperative Complications after Pancreatoduodenectomy. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:824525. doi: 10.1155/2015/824525
  23. Roberts KJ, Sutcliffe RP, Marudanayagam R, et al. Scoring System to Predict Pancreatic Fistula After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A UK Multicenter Study. Ann Surg. 2015;261(6):1191-7. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000997
  24. Sandini M, Bernasconi DP, Ippolito D, et al. Preoperative Computed Tomography to Predict and Stratify the Risk of Severe Pancreatic Fistula After Pancreatoduodenectomy. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(31):e1152. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001152
  25. Benjamin AJ, Buschmann MM, Schneider A, et al. Can Comprehensive Imaging Analysis with Analytic Morphomics and Geriatric Assessment Predict Serious Complications in Patients Undergoing Pancreatic Surgery? J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21(6):1009-16. doi: 10.1007/s11605-017-3392-3
  26. Partelli S, Andreasi V, Schiavo Lena M, et al. The role of acinar content at pancreatic resection margin in the development of postoperative pancreatic fistula and acute pancreatitis after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery. 2021;170(4):1215-22. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.03.047
  27. Nahm CB, Lui I, Naidoo CS, et al. Density and enhancement of the pancreatic tail on computer tomography predicts acinar score and pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2019;21(5):604-11. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2018.09.014
  28. Гальчина Ю.С., Кармазановский Г.Г., Калинин Д.В., и др. Критерии диагностики “мягкой” поджелудочной железы и их влияние на возникновение панкреатического свища после панкреатодуоденальной резекции. Анналы хирургической гепатологии. 2020;25(2):113-23 [Galchina YuS, Kаrmаzаnovsky GG, Kalinin DV, et al. Diagnostic criteria for a “soft” pancreas and their influence on the occurrence of pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenal. Annaly Khirurgicheskoy Gepatologii. 2020;25(2):113-23 (in Russian)]. doi: 10.16931/1995-5464.20202113-123
  29. Гальчина Ю.С., Кармазановский Г.Г., Калинин Д.В., и др. Панкреатический свищ при проксимальной резекции поджелудочной железы: корреляция компьютерно-томографических и морфологических предикторов. Медицинская визуализация. 2020;24(1):29-38 [Galchina YuS, Kаrmаzаnovsky GG, Kalinin DV, et al. Pancreatic fistula in proximal pancreas resection: correlation of computed tomography and morphological predictors. Medical Visualization. 2020;24(1):29-38 (in Russian)]. doi: 10.24835/1607-0763-2020-1-29-38
  30. Горин Д.С., Кригер А.Г., Галкин Г.В., и др. Прогнозирование возникновения панкреатического свища после панкреатодуоденальной резекции. Хирургия. Журнал им. Н.И. Пирогова. 2020;7:61-7 [Gorin DS, Kriger AG, Galkin GV, et al. Predicting of pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2020;(7):617 (in Russian)]. doi: 10.17116/hirurgia202007161
  31. Laaninen M, Sand J, Nordback I, et al. Perioperative Hydrocortisone Reduces Major Complications After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg. 2016;264(5):696-702. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001883
  32. Trudeau MT, Casciani F, Ecker BL, et al. The Fistula risk score catalog: toward precision medicine for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2022;275(2):e463-72. DOI:10.1097/ SLA.0000000000004068
  33. Trudeau MT, Maggino L, Chen B, et al. Extended experience with a dynamic, data-driven selective drain management protocol in pancreaticoduodenectomy: progressive risk stratification for better practice. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;230:809-18.e1.
  34. McMillan MT, Malleo G, Bassi C, et al. Multicenter, Prospective trial of selective drain management for pancreatoduodenectomy using risk stratification. Ann Surg. 2017;265:1209-18.
  35. Partelli S, Tamburrino D, Andreasi V, et al. Implications of increased serum amylase after pancreaticoduodenectomy: toward a better definition of clinically relevant postoperative acute pancreatitis. HPB (Oxford). 2020;22:1645-53.
  36. Kuhlbrey CM, Samiei N, Sick O, et al. Pancreatitis after pancreatoduodenectomy predicts clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21:330-8.
  37. Bannone E, Andrianello S, Marchegiani G, et al. Postoperative hyperamylasemia (POH) and acute pancreatitis after pancreatoduodenectomy (POAP): state of the art and systematic review. Surgery. 2021;169:377-87.
  38. Loos M, Strobel O, Dietrich M, et al. Hyperamylasemia and acute pancreatitis after pancreatoduodenectomy: two different entities. Surgery. 2021;169:369e376.
  39. Ikenaga N, Ohtsuka T, Nakata K, et al. Clinical significance of postoperative acute pancreatitis after pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Surgery. 2021;169:732-7.
  40. Shrikhande SV. Invited commentary: evolving landscape of postoperative hyperamylasemia, postoperative acute pancreatitis, and postoperative pancreatic fistula: time for a unifying definition. Surgery. 2020;169:740-1.
  41. Cuthbertson CM, Christophi C. Disturbances of the microcirculation in acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg. 2006;93:518-30.
  42. Kawai M, Yamaue H. Analysis of clinical trials evaluating complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a new era of pancreatic surgery. Surg Today. 2010;40:1011-7.
  43. Mathur A, Pitt HA, Marine M, et al. Fatty pancreas: a factor in postoperative pancreatic fistula. Ann Surg. 2007;246:1058-64.
  44. Rosso E, Casnedi S, Pessaux P, et al. The role of “Fatty Pancreas” and of BMI in the occurrence of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:1845-51.
  45. Gaujoux S, Cortes A, Couvelard A, et al. Fatty pancreas and increased body mass index are risk factors of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery. 2010;148:15-23.
  46. Belyaev O, Munding J, Herzog T, et al. Histomorphological features of the pancreatic remnant as independent risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula: a matched-pairs analysis. Pancreatology. 2011;11:516-24.
  47. Rykina-Tameeva N, Nahm CB, Mehta S, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer changes the composition of the pancreatic parenchyma. HPB (Oxford). 2020;22(11):1631-6. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.03.007.
  48. Hank T, Sandini M, Ferrone CR, et al. Association Between Pancreatic Fistula and Long-term Survival in the Era of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(10):943-51. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2272.
  49. Ridolfi C, Angiolini MR, Gavazzi F, et al. Morphohistological features of pancreatic stump are the main determinant of pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:641239. doi: 10.1155/2014/641239.
  50. Nahm CB, Connor SJ, Samra JS, Mittal A. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: a review of traditional and emerging concepts. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2018;11:105-18.
  51. Yang Y, Tian X, Zhuang Y, et al. Risk factors of pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol. 2005;11:2456-61.
  52. Kawai M, Kondo S, Yamaue H, et al. Predictive risk factors for clinically relevant pancreatic fistula analyzed in 1,239 patients with pancreaticoduodenectomy: multicenter data collection as a project study of pancreatic surgery by the Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2011;18:601-8.

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载
2. Fig. 1. Nomogram for risk assessment of pancreatic fistula development.

下载 (110KB)
索引源数据

版权所有 © Consilium Medicum, 2024

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用-相同方式共享 4.0国际许可协议的许可。
 


##common.cookie##