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
. 2011 Dec;81(6):402-7.
doi: 10.4174/jkss.2011.81.6.402. Epub 2011 Nov 25.

Amylase, lipase, and volume of drainage fluid in gastrectomy for the early detection of complications caused by pancreatic leakage

Kyung Won Seo  1 , Ki Young Yoon, Sang Ho Lee, Yeon Myung Shin, Kyung Hyun Choi, Hyun Yong Hwang
Affiliations

Amylase, lipase, and volume of drainage fluid in gastrectomy for the early detection of complications caused by pancreatic leakage

Kyung Won Seo et al. J Korean Surg Soc. 2011 Dec.

Abstract

Purpose: Pancreatic leakage is a serious complication of gastrectomy due to stomach cancer. Therefore, we analyzed amylase and lipase concentrations in blood and drainage fluid, and evaluated the volume of drainage fluid to discern their usefulness as markers for the early detection of serious pancreatic leakage requiring reoperation after gastrectomy.

Methods: From January 2001 to December 2007, we retrospectively analyzed data from 24,072 patient samples. We divided patients into two groups; 1) complications with pancreatic leakage (CG), and 2) no complications associated with pancreatic leakage (NCG). Values of amylase and lipase in the blood and drainage fluid, volume of the drainage fluid, and relationships among the volumes, amylase values, and lipase values in the drainage fluid were evaluated, respectively in the two groups.

Results: The mean amylase values of CG were significantly higher than those of NCG in blood and drainage fluid (P < 0.05). For lipase, statistically significant differences were observed in drainage fluid (P < 0.05). The mean volume (standard deviation) of the drained fluid through the tube between CG (n = 22) and NCG (n = 236) on postoperative day 1 were 368.41 (266.25) and 299.26 (300.28), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups (P = 0.298). There was a correlation between the amylase and lipase values in the drainage fluid (r = 0.812, P = 0.000).

Conclusion: Among postoperative amylase and lipase values in blood and drainage fluid, and the volume of drainage fluid, the amylase in drainage fluid was better differentiated between CG and NCG than other markers. The volume of the drainage fluid did not differ significantly between groups.

Keywords: Drainage fluid; Gastrectomy; Pancreatic leakage; Stomach neoplasms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) of amylase and lipase in blood. ROC curve created to identify the cut-off value of amylase concentration. Figures in parentheses are sensitivity and specificity. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) is 0.731 and 0.535 for amylase and lipase, respectively.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) of amylase and lipase in drainage fluid. ROC curve created to identify the cut-off value of amylase concentration. Figures in parentheses are sensitivity and specificity. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) is 0.797 and 0.735 for amylase and lipase, respectively. The AUC value was highest for amylase from the drainage fluid.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Correlations among amylase, lipase, and volume in the drainage fluid by postoperative day. No significant correlation between the volume of drainage fluid and amylase or lipase concentrations was observed. POD, Postoperative day; POD 4+, From POD 4 to the rest POD; POD all, All postoperative days' data included.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sano T, Sasako M, Katai H, Maruyama K. Amylase concentration of drainage fluid after total gastrectomy. Br J Surg. 1997;84:1310–1312. - PubMed
    1. Robertson CS, Chung SC, Woods SD, Griffin SM, Raimes SA, Lau JT, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing R1 subtotal gastrectomy with R3 total gastrectomy for antral cancer. Ann Surg. 1994;220:176–182. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bonenkamp JJ, Songun I, Hermans J, Sasako M, Welvaart K, Plukker JT, et al. Randomised comparison of morbidity after D1 and D2 dissection for gastric cancer in 996 Dutch patients. Lancet. 1995;345:745–748. - PubMed
    1. Sasako M, McCulloch P, Kinoshita T, Maruyama K. New method to evaluate the therapeutic value of lymph node dissection for gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 1995;82:346–351. - PubMed
    1. Tanaka K, Miyashiro I, Yano M, Kishi K, Motoori M, Seki Y, et al. Accumulation of excess visceral fat is a risk factor for pancreatic fistula formation after total gastrectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1520–1525. - PubMed