English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  In recent years, many advances in pancreatic surgery have been achieved. Nevertheless, the rate of pancreatic fistula following pancreatic tail resection does not differ between various techniques, still reaching up to 30% in prospective multicentric studies. Taking into account contradictory results concerning the usefulness of covering resection margins after distal pancreatectomy, we sought to perform a systematic, retrospective analysis of patients that underwent distal pancreatectomy at our center.    Methods  We retrospectively analysed the data of 74 patients that underwent distal pancreatectomy between 2001 and 2011 at the community hospital in Neuss. Demographic factors, indications, postoperative complications, surgical or interventional revisions, and length of hospital stay were registered to compare the outcome of patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy with coverage of the resection margins vs. patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy without coverage of the resection margins. Differences between groups were calculated using Fisher’s exact and Mann–Whitney U test.    Results  Main indications for pancreatic surgery were insulinoma (n=18,  24% ), ductal adenocarcinoma (n=9,  12% ), non-single-insulinoma-pancreatogenic-hypoglycemia-syndrome (NSIPHS) (n=8,  11% ), and pancreatic cysts with pancreatitis (n=8,  11% ). In 39 of 74 ( 53% ) patients no postoperative complications were noted. In detail we found that 23/42 ( 55% ) patients with coverage vs. 16/32 ( 50% ) without coverage of the resection margins had no postoperative complications. The most common complications were pancreatic fistulas in eleven patients ( 15% ), and postoperative bleeding in nine patients ( 12% ). Pancreatic fistulas occurred in patients without coverage of the resection margins in 7/32 ( 22% ) vs. 4/42 (10 11% ) with coverage are of the resection margins, yet without reaching statistical significance. Postoperative bleeding ensued with equal frequency in both groups ( 12%  with coverage versus  13%  without coverage of the resection margins). The reoperation rate was  8% . The hospital stay for patients without coverage was 13 days (5–60) vs. 17 days (8–60) for patients with coverage.    Conclusions  The results show no significant difference in the fistula rate after covering of the resection margin after distal pancreatectomy, which contributes to the picture of an unsolved problem.

Is the covering of the resection margin after distal pancreatectomy advantageous?