Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2005 Aug;4(3):450-5.

Comparison of Wirsung-jejunal duct-to-mucosa and dunking technique for pancreatojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy

Affiliations
  • PMID: 16109535
Free article
Comparative Study

Comparison of Wirsung-jejunal duct-to-mucosa and dunking technique for pancreatojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy

Giacomo Batignani et al. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2005 Aug.
Free article

Abstract

Background: Pancreato-enteric reconstruction after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is still a source of debate because of the high incidence of complications. Among the various types of pancreato-jejunostomies we don't know yet which is the best in terms of anastomotic failure and related complications rates. Wirsung-jejunal duct-to-mucosa anastomosis (WJ) and "dunking" pancreato-jejunal anastomosis (DPJ) are the two most used ones worldwide but conflicting results are reported. To determine which is the safer anastomosis and to define when an anastomosis should be preferred, we retrospectively reviewed two groups of patients who underwent WJ or DPJ.

Methods: Twenty-three patients underwent PD with WJ (n = 17) with dilated (WJD) (n = 9) or not-dilated Wirsung's duct (WJND) (n = 8) or with a DPJ (n = 6) over a 3-year period at a single institution.

Results: The complications rate was high in all groups of patients (33.3% in WJD, 37.5% in WJND and 66.7% in DPJ). A pancreatic fistula developed in one patient in each group (11.1% in WJD, 12.5% in WJND and 16.7% in DPJ). All these patients were managed conservatively. Anastomotic disruption took place in the WJ patients especially in the WJND group (n = 2) compared to the WJD (n = 1) (25% vs. 11.1%) or DPJ groups (0%): these three patients required a re-operation. Overall, the anastomotic defects were higher in patients who underwent WJND (37.5%), compared to WJD (22.2%) and to DPJ (16.7%). However, no statistical differences were found among the groups. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) and total parenteral nutrition (TPN) along with anastomotic defects were responsible for a prolonged hospital stay.

Conclusions: Our results were not able to demonstrate any statistical difference between the two different techniques in preventing anastomotic failure. WJ can represent a valid choice in case of a dilated duct and a firm, fibrotic enlarged gland that could not be properly invaginated in a small jejunal loop. DGE may occur in those patients who experienced an anastomotic failure and required a TPN regimen with a prolonged hospital stay.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms