中文｜English
ISSN 1001-5256 (Print)
ISSN 2097-3497 (Online)
CN 22-1108/R
Volume 40 Issue 4
Apr.  2024
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Article Navigation >  Journal of Clinical Hepatology  > 2024  >  40(4): 773-781

Establishment of a risk prediction model for pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy： A study based on the 2016 edition of the definition and classification system of pancreatic fistula

DOI: 10.12449/JCH240421
  • a.

    Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Tianjin Third Central Hospital，Tianjin 300170，China

  • b.

    Tianjin Key Laboratory of Extracorporeal Life Support for Critical Diseases, Tianjin Third Central Hospital，Tianjin 300170，China

  • c.

    Artificial Cell Engineering Technology Research Center，Tianjin Third Central Hospital，Tianjin 300170，China

Research funding:

Tianjin Health Research Project (TJWJ2023MS016)

More Information
  • Corresponding author: SHI Jingxiang， 18002180065@163.com （ORCID： 0000-0002-8999-4480）
  • Received Date: 2023-09-24
  • Accepted Date: 2024-01-02
  • Published Date: 2024-04-11
    Abstract
  •   Objective  To investigate the differences in the risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula （POPF） after pancreaticoduodenectomy （PD） between the 2005 and 2016 editions of the definition and classification standards for pancreatic fistula， and to establish a risk prediction model for pancreatic fistula based on the 2016 edition.  Methods  A retrospective analysis was performed for the clinical data of 303 patients who were admitted to Tianjin Third Central Hospital and underwent PD from January 2016 to May 2022， and the patients with POPF were identified based on the new and old editions. The independent-samples t test or the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of continuous data between groups， and the chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data between groups. The univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to investigate the differences in the risk factors for pancreatic fistula after PD between the two editions； a risk prediction model was established for POPF based on the 2016 edition， and the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to invesitgate the accuracy of this model in predicting POPF and perform model validation.  Results  According to the 2005 edition， the univariate analysis showed that the diameter of the main pancreatic duct （χ2=31.641， P<0.001）， main pancreatic duct index （χ2=52.777， P<0.001）， portal vein invasion （χ2=6.259， P=0.012）， intra-abdominal fat thickness （χ2=7.665， P=0.006）， preoperative biliary drainage （χ2=5.999， P=0.014）， pancreatic cancer （χ2=5.544， P=0.019）， marginal pancreatic thickness （t=2.055， P=0.032）， pancreatic CT value （t=-3.224， P=0.002）， and preoperative blood amylase level （Z=-2.099， P=0.036） were closely associated with POPF， and the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that main pancreatic duct index （odds ratio ［OR］=0.000， 95% confidence interval ［CI］： 0.000‍ ‍—‍ ‍0.011， P<0.05）， pancreatic cancer （OR=4.843， 95%CI： 1.285‍ ‍—‍ ‍18.254， P<0.05）， and pancreatic CT value （OR=0.869， 95%CI： 0.806‍ ‍—‍ ‍0.937， P<0.05） were independent risk factors； based on the 2016 edition， the univariate analysis showed the diameter of the main pancreatic duct （χ2=5.391， P=0.020）， main pancreatic duct index （χ2=11.394， P=0.001）， intra-abdominal fat thickness （χ2=8.899， P=0.003）， marginal pancreatic thickness （t=2.665， P=0.009）， pancreatic CT value （t=-2.835， P=0.004） were closely associated with POPF， and the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that main pancreatic duct index （OR=0.001， 95%CI： 0.000‍ ‍—‍ ‍0.050， P<0.05） and pancreatic CT value （OR=0.943， 95%CI： 0.894‍ ‍—‍ ‍0.994， P<0.05） were independent risk factors. A risk prediction model was established for POPF after PD， and the ROC curve analysis showed that this model had an area under the ROC curve of 0.788 （95%CI： 0.707‍ ‍—‍ ‍0.870） in the modeling group and 0.804 （95%CI： 0.675‍ ‍—‍ ‍0.932） in the validation group.  Conclusion  Main pancreatic duct index and pancreatic CT value are closely associated with POPF after PD， and the risk prediction model for pancreatic fistula based on the 2016 edition has a good prediction accuracy.

     

    • FullText(HTML)
  • loading
    • References(32)
  • [1]
    LI Y, SHI YB, TU JH, et al. Risk factors and prophylaxis for pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy[J/OL]. Chin J Hepatic Surg(Electronic Edition), 2023, 12( 3): 352- 355. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3232.2023.03.021.

    李扬, 史亚波, 涂建华, 等. 胰十二指肠切除术后胰瘘发生的危险因素及预防[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12( 3): 352- 355. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3232.2023.03.021.
    [2]
    LIU L, XU ZH, WANG WQ, et al. Prevention and management of pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy with precise and comprehensive opinion[J]. Chin J Dig Surg, 2023, 22( 5): 657- 662. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20230401-00143.

    刘亮, 徐志航, 王文权, 等. 精准联合综合策略防治胰十二指肠切除术后胰瘘[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2023, 22( 5): 657- 662. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20230401-00143.
    [3]
    BASSI C, BUCHLER MW, FINGERHUT A, et al. Predictive factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula[J]. Ann Surg, 2015, 261( 4): e99. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000577.
    [4]
    MALGRAS B, DOKMAK S, AUSSILHOU B, et al. Management of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy[J]. J Visc Surg, 2023, 160( 1): 39- 51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2023.01.002.
    [5]
    AOKI S, MIYATA H, KONNO H, et al. Risk factors of serious postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy and risk calculators for predicting postoperative complications: A nationwide study of 17, 564 patients in Japan[J]. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci, 2017, 24( 5): 243- 251. DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.438.
    [6]
    BASSI C, DERVENIS C, BUTTURINI G, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: An international study group(ISGPF) definition[J]. Surgery, 2005, 138( 1): 8- 13. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.05.001.
    [7]
    BASSI C, MARCHEGIANI G, DERVENIS C, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group(ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After[J]. Surgery, 2017, 161( 3): 584- 591. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014.
    [8]
    CHEN HP, SHAO WX, LONG DY. Value of preoperative computed tomography for prediction of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy[J]. World Chin J Dig, 2015, 23( 9): 1489- 1494. DOI: 10.11569/wcjd.v23.i9.1489.

    陈和平, 邵伟新, 龙德云. 手术前计算机断层扫描对胰十二指肠切除术后患者发生胰瘘的预测价值[J]. 世界华人消化杂志, 2015, 23( 9): 1489- 1494. DOI: 10.11569/wcjd.v23.i9.1489.
    [9]
    WENG H, SHU YJ, BAO RF, et al. Preoperative pancreas plain scan CT value for the evaluation of the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula[J]. Chin J Gen Surg, 2014, 29( 1): 21- 24. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-631X.2014.01.006.

    翁昊, 束翌俊, 包润发, 等. 术前胰腺平扫CT值可预测胰十二指肠切除术后胰瘘危险性[J]. 中华普通外科杂志, 2014, 29( 1): 21- 24. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-631X.2014.01.006.
    [10]
    SHI S, XIANG JF, XU J, et al. Updates and interpretations of PODF definition and grading system(2016 edition) by ISGPS[J]. Chin J Pract Surg, 2017, 37( 2): 149- 152. DOI: 10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2017.02.12.

    施思, 项金峰, 徐近, 等. 2016版 国际胰腺外科研究组术后胰瘘定义和分级系统更新内容介绍和解析[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2017, 37( 2): 149- 152. DOI: 10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2017.02.12.
    [11]
    WU JZ, TANG ZQ, ZHAO G, et al. Incidence and risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula in 2089 patients treated by radical gastrectomy: A prospective multicenter cohort study in China[J]. Int J Surg, 2022, 98: 106219. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106219.
    [12]
    HALLE-SMITH JM, VINUELA E, BROWN RM, et al. A comparative study of risk factors for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy[J]. HPB, 2017, 19( 8): 727- 734. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2017.04.013.
    [13]
    POTTER KC, SUTTON TL, O’GRADY J, et al. Risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula in the Era of pasireotide[J]. Am J Surg, 2022, 224( 2): 733- 736. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2022.02.050.
    [14]
    ROBERTS KJ, SUTCLIFFE RP, MARUDANAYAGAM R, et al. Scoring system to predict pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A UK multicenter study[J]. Ann Surg, 2015, 261( 6): 1191- 1197. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000997.
    [15]
    SIMON R. Complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy[J]. Surg Clin North Am, 2021, 101( 5): 865- 874. DOI: 10.1016/j.suc.2021.06.011.
    [16]
    WADA K, TRAVERSO LW. Pancreatic anastomotic leak after the Whipple procedure is reduced using the surgical microscope[J]. Surgery, 2006, 139( 6): 735- 742. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.11.001.
    [17]
    SUGIMOTO M, TAKAHASHI S, KOJIMA M, et al. In patients with a soft pancreas, a thick parenchyma, a small duct, and fatty infiltration are significant risks for pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy[J]. J Gastrointest Surg, 2017, 21( 5): 846- 854. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-017-3356-7.
    [18]
    AKAMATSU N, SUGAWARA Y, KOMAGOME M, et al. Risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: The significance of the ratio of the main pancreatic duct to the pancreas body as a predictor of leakage[J]. J Hepato Biliary Pancreat Sci, 2010, 17( 3): 322- 328. DOI: 10.1007/s00534-009-0248-6.
    [19]
    CHEN JY, FENG J, WANG XQ, et al. Risk scoring system and predictor for clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2015, 21( 19): 5926- 5933. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i19.5926.
    [20]
    KAMARAJAH SK, BUNDRED JR, LIN A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors associated with post-operative pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy[J]. ANZ J Surg, 2021, 91( 5): 810- 821. DOI: 10.1111/ans.16408.
    [21]
    UTSUMI M, AOKI H, NAGAHISA S, et al. Preoperative predictive factors of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: Usefulness of the CONUT score[J]. Ann Surg Treat Res, 2020, 99( 1): 18- 25. DOI: 10.4174/astr.2020.99.1.18.
    [22]
    KAJIWARA T, SAKAMOTO Y, MOROFUJI N, et al. An analysis of risk factors for pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: Clinical impact of bile juice infection on day 1[J]. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2010, 395( 6): 707- 712. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-009-0547-z.
    [23]
    ADAMU M, PLODECK V, ADAM C, et al. Predicting postoperative pancreatic fistula in pancreatic head resections: Which score fits all?[J]. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2022, 407( 1): 175- 188. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-021-02290-x.
    [24]
    TRANCHART H, GAUJOUX S, REBOURS V, et al. Preoperative CT scan helps to predict the occurrence of severe pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy[J]. Ann Surg, 2012, 256( 1): 139- 145. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318256c32c.
    [25]
    JANG M, PARK HW, HUH J, et al. Predictive value of sarcopenia and visceral obesity for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy analyzed on clinically acquired CT and MRI[J]. Eur Radiol, 2019, 29( 5): 2417- 2425. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5790-7.
    [26]
    WENG H, FAN QQ, SONG XL, et al. Preoperative pancreatic CT value is related to pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective study[J]. Gland Surg, 2023, 12( 2): 243- 251. DOI: 10.21037/gs-23-19.
    [27]
    CALLERY MP, PRATT WB, KENT TS, et al. A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2013, 216( 1): 1- 14. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.09.002.
    [28]
    ROBERTS KJ, HODSON J, MEHRZAD H, et al. A preoperative predictive score of pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy[J]. HPB, 2014, 16( 7): 620- 628. DOI: 10.1111/hpb.12186.
    [29]
    CHEN YR, TIAN XD, XIE XH, et al. Risk factors of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy and its predictive score[J]. Chin J Surg, 2016, 54( 1): 39- 43. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2016.01.010.

    陈依然, 田孝东, 谢学海, 等. 胰十二指肠切除术后胰瘘风险预测系统的建立和应用[J]. 中华外科杂志, 2016, 54( 1): 39- 43. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2016.01.010.
    [30]
    MUNGROOP TH, van RIJSSEN LB, van KLAVEREN D, et al. Alternative fistula risk score for pancreatoduodenectomy(a-FRS): Design and international external validation[J]. Ann Surg, 2019, 269( 5): 937- 943. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002620.
    [31]
    XU XB, JIA CP, JIA Y, et al. Construction and application value of prediction model of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy[J]. Chin J Dig Surg, 2020, 19( 4): 408- 413. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20200409-00240.

    徐西伯, 贾成朋, 贾勇, 等. 构建胰十二指肠切除术后胰瘘预测模型及其应用价值[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2020, 19( 4): 408- 413. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20200409-00240.
    [32]
    GUILBAUD T, GARNIER J, GIRARD E, et al. Postoperative day 1 combination of serum C-reactive protein and drain amylase values predicts risks of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula. The“90-1000” score[J]. Surgery, 2021, 170( 5): 1508- 1516. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.04.033.
    • Relative Articles
    • Supplements(0)
    • Cited By
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(2)  / Tables(5)

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML

    Article Metrics

    Article views (69) PDF downloads(12) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related
        

    The first journal specializing in hepatobiliary and pancreatic diseases in China

    Supervisor：Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China

    Sponsor：Jilin University

    Academic Support: Chinese Society of Hepatology，Chinese Medical Association

    Address: 461 Xinjiang Road, Changchun

    Submit：0431-88782044

    Peer review：0431-88783542

    Email：lcgdb@vip.163.com

    About Journal

    Submission Guideline

    Journal Online

    Hepatobiliary College

    Guidelines

    YesterdayIP[]YesterdayPV[]TodayIP[]TodayPV[]Online[]

    Website Design © 2020 Editorial Board of Journal of Clinical Hepatology 吉ICP备10000617号-1 Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd  

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return