Next Article in Journal
A New Digital Method to Quantify the Effects Produced by Carriere Motion Appliance
Previous Article in Journal
Highly Selective Targeting of Pancreatic Cancer in the Liver with a Near-Infrared Anti-MUC5AC Probe in a PDOX Mouse Model: A Proof-of-Concept Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JPM
Volume 13
Issue 5
10.3390/jpm13050858
jpm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Outcomes of Duct-to-Mucosa vs. Invagination Pancreatojejunostomy: Toward a Personalized Approach for Distal Pancreatic Stump Anastomosis in Central Pancreatectomy?

by
Traian Dumitrascu
1,* and
Irinel Popescu
2
1
Center of General Surgery and Liver Transplant, Fundeni Clinical Institute, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 022328 Bucharest, Romania
2
Center of General Surgery and Liver Transplant, Fundeni Clinical Institute, Titu Maiorescu University, 022328 Bucharest, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13(5), 858; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13050858
Submission received: 17 April 2023 / Revised: 16 May 2023 / Accepted: 19 May 2023 / Published: 20 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Methodology, Drug and Device Discovery)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: The jejunum is primarily used for distal pancreatic stump anastomoses after central pancreatectomy (CP). The study aimed to compare duct-to-mucosa (WJ) and distal pancreatic invagination into jejunum anastomoses (PJ) after CP. (2) Methods: All patients with CP and jejunal anastomoses (between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2022) were retrospectively assessed and compared. (3) Results: 29 CP were analyzed: WJ—12 patients (41.4%) and PJ—17 patients (58.6%). The operative time was significantly higher in the WJ vs. PJ group of patients (195 min vs. 140 min, p = 0.012). Statistically higher rates of patients within the high-risk fistula group were observed in the PJ vs. WJ group (52.9% vs. 0%, p = 0.003). However, no differences were observed between the groups regarding the overall, severe, and specific postpancreatectomy morbidity rates (p values ≥ 0.170). (4) Conclusions: The WJ and PJ anastomoses after CP were comparable in terms of morbidity rates. However, a PJ anastomosis appeared to fit better for patients with high-risk fistula scores. Thus, a personalized, patient-adapted technique for the distal pancreatic stump anastomosis with the jejunum after CP should be considered. At the same time, future research should explore gastric anastomoses’ emerging role.

1. Introduction

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a rarely performed [1,2] and controversial type of pancreatic resection [3] that is sometimes used as an alternative to distal pancreatectomy mainly for certain benign and low-grade malignant tumors of the pancreatic body and isthmus [4]. The principal advantage of a CP over a distal pancreatectomy is a better preservation of postoperative pancreatic functions, particularly the endocrine one [5,6,7,8]. However, a CP is associated with high morbidity rates (higher than distal pancreatectomies) [5,6,7,9] and exceptionally high rates of postoperative pancreatic fistulae (POPF) [2,3]. Thus, even in large series of patients from high-volume centers, the POPF rates after CP are around 45.3–63% [10,11,12]. A potential explanation for the high rates of POPF is the presence of two remaining pancreatic stumps (proximal and distal) [11,13] and the fact that the indications for CP are mainly represented by benign cystic or neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors [7,11], a situation widely considered to be associated with increased rates of POPF [14,15]. Furthermore, most patients with CP have soft pancreas texture and small Wirsung ducts [11], two determinant risk factors for POPF development [14,15]. Nevertheless, the distal pancreatic stump anastomosis after CP remains a significant source of postoperative complications, namely POPF.
The jejunum is primarily used for distal pancreatic stump anastomoses after CP [1,4,8,11,12,16]. However, in a few centers, an anastomosis with the stomach is preferred for the distal pancreatic stump after CP [10,17,18], especially in a minimally invasive approach [19,20].
Various reconstruction techniques have been proposed for the distal pancreatic stump to reduce POPF rates after CP and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for both anastomoses with the jejunum and the stomach [21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. Although many studies are comparing the outcomes of different types of anastomoses of the distal pancreatic stump after PD [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32], for CP, the data are scarce. Thus, to date, only three studies have compared the distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum vs. the stomach after CP [12,33,34], and one study has compared pancreatojejunostomy with end-to-end Wirsung duct anastomoses [35]. Interestingly, no study has compared different types of distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum after CP.
The present study aimed to compare duct-to-mucosa Wirsungo-jejunal anastomoses (WJ) and distal pancreatic invagination into the jejunum anastomoses (PJ) in a single-center series of patients with CP.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patients and Surgical Technique

The data of all patients with CP performed between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2022 in our surgical center were retrospectively assessed from a prospectively maintained electronic database.
Our technique for CP was previously described elsewhere [36,37]. Patients with a distal pancreatic stump anastomosis with the stomach were excluded. A comparison regarding outcomes between the distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the stomach and distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum would have added value to the present study but it was not feasible because the number of patients in the group of patients with CP and distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the stomach was very small.
The patients were split into two groups: patients with duct-to-mucosa Wirsungo-jejunal anastomoses (WJ group) and patients with distal pancreatic stump invagination into the jejunum anastomoses (PJ group). The invagination technique was constructed into an end-to-side single layer of interrupted nonabsorbable sutures between the pancreatic parenchyma and capsule and the full-thickness jejunum. The duct-to-mucosa technique consisted of a double layer of interrupted nonabsorbable sutures: the inner layer, an end-to-side anastomosis of the Wirsung duct with the full-thickness jejunum; the outer layer, sutures between the pancreatic parenchyma and capsule and the seromuscular jejunum. The choice for the distal pancreatic stump anastomoses was not standardized, and it was made mainly according to the surgeon’s expertise and preference. The surgeons who performed the surgical procedures were familiar with both anastomotic techniques and usually, when the Wirsung duct diameter was large enough, a duct-to-mucosa technique was first considered as the reconstruction method for the distal pancreatic stump after CP.
The patients’ pre, intra, and postoperative data were comparatively assessed. The preoperative data included sex, age, body mass index, smoking and alcohol abuse, cardiovascular comorbidities, associated diabetes mellitus and chronic pancreatitis, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Karnofsky scores. The intraoperative parameters included estimated blood loss, operative time, tumor diameter, pancreas texture, the diameter of the Wirsung duct, and associated procedures and pathology.

2.2. Definition of Outcomes

The early morbidity was defined as in-hospital complications. The Dindo classification and grading of postoperative complications were used [38]. A complication grade 3 or 4 was considered a severe complication. For the specific postpancreatectomy complications such as POPF [39], postoperative hemorrhage (PPH) [40], and delayed gastric emptying (DGE) [41], the definitions and grading of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery were used. The postoperative mortality was assessed at 90 days.
For the long-term outcomes, the patients were periodically followed till death occurrence or the last follow-up update (1 February 2023).

2.3. Statistics

Data are expressed as number (percentage) for the categorical variables and as median (range) for the continuous variables, except for the overall survival time where the medians were not reached; for the overall survival time, data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. The comparisons between the groups were made using the Mann–Whitney test (for continuous variables) and Fisher’s exact two-tailed test (for categorical variables). Kaplan–Meier curves were used for the overall survival time, and the groups’ comparisons were made using the long-rank test. p values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results

During the analyzed period, in our surgical center, 34 CPs were performed. The analyses excluded five patients (14.7%) with distal pancreas stump anastomoses with the stomach. Thus, the cohort included 29 patients with CP split into two groups: the WJ group—12 patients (41.4%) and the PJ group—17 patients (58.6%).

3.1. Demographics and Preoperative Parameters

No statistically significant differences were observed between the WJ and PJ groups of patients regarding the primary demographics and preoperative parameters (p values ≥ 0.105), as shown in Table 1.

3.2. Intraoperative Data

All CPs included in the present analyses were performed through an open approach. The preservation of the splenic vessels and spleen was performed in all analyzed patients.
No statistically significant differences were observed between the WJ and PJ groups of patients regarding the indication for CP from the point of view of pathology (including neuroendocrine pathology), associated procedures, tumor diameter, and estimated blood loss (p values ≥ 0.138), as shown in Table 2. No patient in the present cohort required intraoperative blood transfusions.
The operative time was statistically significant higher in the WJ group of patients, compared with the PJ group of patients (195 min, range: 120–480 min vs. 140 min, range: 100–205 min, p = 0.012) (Table 2). Furthermore, although there were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding the percent of patients with a soft pancreas texture (83.3% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.553, ns), the Wirsung duct diameter was statistically significantly higher in the WJ group of patients, compared with the PJ group of patients (3 mm, range: 2–3 mm vs. 1 mm, range: 1–6 mm, p < 0.0003) (Table 2).
Of note, statistically significant differences were observed between the groups regarding the pancreatic fistula risk scores [42] (WJ group: 5 points, range: 3–6 points vs. PJ group: 7 points, range: 2–7 points, p < 0.001) (Figure 1), with statistically significant higher rates of patients within the high-risk fistula group [42] in the PJ group of patients, compared with the WJ group of patients (52.9% vs. 0%, p = 0.003) (Table 2).

3.3. Early Postoperative Outcomes

No statistically significant differences were observed between the WJ and PJ groups of patients regarding the overall morbidity (including comprehensive complication index [43]), severe morbidity, clinically relevant POPF, DGE and PPH, postoperative blood transfusions and hospital stays, postoperative abdominal drainage time, relaparotomy for complications, and 90-day mortality rates (p values ≥ 0.170) (Table 3).

3.4. Late Postoperative Outcomes

No statistically significant differences were observed between the WJ and PJ groups of patients regarding the mean overall survival time (232 ± 18 months vs. 215 ± 10 months, p = 0.780, ns), as shown in Figure 2. However, it is worth mentioning that there was a statistically significant difference between the WJ and PJ groups of patients for the median follow-up time (203 months, range: 28–251 months vs. 157 months, range: 46–225 months, p = 0.019) (Table 4). The 20-year survival rates were 94% for the PJ group of patients and 92% for the WJ group. In the PJ group of patients, a patient resected for metastatic melanoma to the pancreas died with peritoneal recurrence 48 months after CP. In the WJ group of patients, two deaths were observed: one patient resected for metastatic colon cancer to the pancreas died with peritoneal recurrence 28 months after CP; in contrast, the other patient, resected for a neuroendocrine tumor died 176 months after CP, but the cause of death was not related to the pancreas pathology.
Regarding the functional postoperative results, no statistically significant differences were observed between the WJ and PJ groups of patients regarding the new-onset or worsening diabetes mellitus rates. None of the patients in the present cohort developed clinically relevant exocrine pancreatic insufficiencies (Table 4).

4. Discussion

Data about the outcomes of different techniques for distal pancreatic stump anastomoses are coming mainly from patients with PD [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,44,45,46], while a minority of studies comparatively explore patients with CP [12,33,34,35].
Mainly, there are two types of jejunal anastomoses of the distal pancreatic stump after PD or CP: duct-to-mucosa and invagination techniques [11,25,28,31,42,47] (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The invagination technique is easier to perform. However, it might be associated with jejunal or pancreatic stump ischemia in the early outcomes and pancreatic stump necrosis, infection, and stenosis in the long-term outcomes due to a direct exposure to the digestive juice. A duct-to-mucosa technique could promote tissue healing but requires more outstanding surgical expertise. Furthermore, a duct-to-mucosa anastomosis might lower the risk of infection and hemorrhage of the distal pancreatic stump by preventing the pancreatic stump from being eroded by digestive juice. However, a duct-to-mucosa anastomosis might be extremely challenging in the setting of a small Wirsung duct and a soft pancreas texture [24].
The current evidence does not favor any specific technique for the distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum after PD [21,22,23,24,25,26,28,29,30,31,44,47,48]. However, a few studies have suggested the association of the duct-to-mucosa technique with lower POPF rates, compared with the invagination technique after PD [46], particularly for patients with dilated Wirsung duct [25]. The invagination technique appears to be the first choice for a soft pancreas texture based on the results of a few studies [21,27,45,49]. In contrast, other studies associated the invagination technique with increased rates of POPF and mortality in patients with PD and soft pancreas texture [50].
In the present study, there were no statistically significant differences between the WJ and the PJ group of patients regarding the overall and severe morbidity, clinically relevant POPF, DGE and PPH, postoperative blood transfusions and hospital stays, postoperative abdominal drainage time, relaparotomy for complications, and 90-day mortality (p values ≥ 0.170), as shown in Table 3. Similar results were previously reported for patients with PD [21,22,23,24,25,26,28,29,30,31,44,47,48]. One study associated PJ anastomoses with reduced hospital stays and postoperative abdominal drainage times in patients with PD, compared with WJ anastomoses [45]. Other studies associated WJ anastomoses with reduced severe complications, PPH rates, and hospital stays in patients with PD, compared with PJ anastomoses [32,46]. It is worth mentioning that in the present study, there were no differences between the WJ and PJ groups of patients regarding a few preoperative factors that could potentially influence the postoperative complication rates after CP (Table 1). Thus, few studies have shown that age and body mass index are independent predictors of morbidity after CP [11,51,52].
Considering the lack of statistically significant differences in postoperative complications between the WJ and the PJ group of patients (Table 3), one might conclude that a pancreatic surgeon can equally choose any of the two techniques to treat distal pancreatic stumps after CP. However, considering the statistically significant higher rates of patients within the high-risk fistula group in the PJ group of patients, compared with the WJ group of patients (52.9% vs. 0%, p = 0.003) (Table 2), it might suggest a personalized, patient-adapted approach for the distal pancreatic stump anastomoses after CP. Thus, the results of the present study appear to favor a PJ over WJ anastomosis for a distal pancreatic stump in patients with CP and high-risk pancreatic fistula scores. In contrast, a WJ anastomosis appears to be a better choice over PJ in patients with a dilated Wirsung duct. Similar data were reported in a recent study by Kone and coworkers but for patients with PD [25].
In the present study, the operative time was statistically significantly higher in the WJ group of patients, compared with the PJ group after CP (195 min vs. 140 min, p = 0.012) (Table 2). A recent meta-analysis showed similar results but for patients with PD [26]. However, another study, including many patients, associated duct-to-mucosa anastomoses with lower operative times, compared with the invagination technique after PD [25]. Nevertheless, a meta-analysis by Lyu and coworkers found no significant differences in the operative times between the two techniques in patients with PD [22].
The present study found no differences between the WJ and PJ groups of patients regarding the endocrine and exocrine postoperative functions after CP (Table 4). Similar data were previously reported for patients with PD [29,48].
The present study has a few limitations: its retrospective design, the heterogeneity of the surgeon’s experience for CP, the choice for the surgical technique of the distal pancreatic stump anastomosis being mainly made based on the surgeon’s preference and expertise and not on objective criteria, and the small number of analyzed patients over a relatively long period. Furthermore, the potential benefit of pancreatogastric anastomoses could not be explored due to the small number of patients with distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the stomach after CP in our center.
Several meta-analyses comparing the outcomes of pancreatojejunostomy with pancreatogastrostomy after PD have reached conflicting results. A few studies did not find any significant differences between the two surgical techniques regarding the incidence of postoperative complications, including POPF and PPH [22,23]. However, other studies suggested that pancreatogastrostomy might be superior to pancreatojejunostomy in preventing clinically relevant POPF [26,53,54]. A recent multicentric study including many patients with PD associated pancreatogastrostomy with higher rates of POPF, compared with the pancreatojejunostomies [32]. Nevertheless, a recent study suggested a tailored approach for distal pancreatic stump anastomosis after PD: a duct-to-mucosa jejunal anastomosis is the first option in patients with a hard pancreatic texture and dilated Wirsung duct. In contrast, for patients with a soft pancreas texture and small Wirsung duct, an invagination pancreatogastrostomy should be preferred [55]. Thus, there is a potential emerging role for using the stomach, particularly for patients with PD and high-risk fistula scores [55].
For CP, there are a limited number of studies comparing gastric and jejunal anastomoses, and the results appear to be at odds with those obtained in patients with PD. For example, in a recent study, the use of the stomach for the distal pancreatic stump anastomosis was associated with statistically significant higher rates of POPF and abdominal collections after CP, compared with the anastomoses with the jejunum (80% vs. 48.4%, p = 0.004 and 48% vs. 27.5%, p = 0.046, respectively) [12]. Statistically significant higher rates of POPF were also reported in two other studies in patients with CP and distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the stomach, compared with jejunal anastomoses (71.4% vs. 18.2%, p = 0.014 and 76.6% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.003, respectively) [33,34]. However, one recent study including many patients with CP associated invaginating pancreatogastrostomy with lower rates of POPF after CP, compared with the duct-to-mucosa techniques [11].

5. Conclusions

CP is a complex surgical procedure associated with high morbidity rates and exceptionally high rates of POPF. The distal pancreatic stump anastomoses represent an essential source of morbidity after CP. Although there were no significant differences in morbidity rates between WJ and PJ anastomoses after CP, for patients with high-risk fistula scores, a PJ anastomosis appeared to fit better. Thus, a personalized, patient-adapted technique for the distal pancreatic stump anastomosis with the jejunum after CP should be considered. At the same time, future research should explore gastric anastomoses’ emerging role.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.D. and I.P.; methodology, T.D.; software, T.D.; validation, T.D. and I.P.; formal analysis T.D.; investigation, T.D.; resources, T.D.; data curation, T.D.; writing—original draft preparation, T.D.; writing—review and editing, T.D. and I.P.; visualization, T.D. and I.P.; supervision, I.P.; project administration, I.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the retrospective design and the lack of interference with the patient’s management.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Crippa, S.; Bassi, C.; Warshaw, A.L.; Falconi, M.; Partelli, S.; Thayer, S.P.; Pederzoli, P.; Castillo, C.F. Middle Pancreatectomy: Indications, Short- and Long-Term Operative Outcomes. Ann. Surg. 2007, 246, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Reber, H.A. Middle Pancreatectomy: Why I Rarely Do It. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2007, 11, 730–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Del Chiaro, M. Are There Really Indications for Central Pancreatectomy? JAMA Surg. 2014, 149, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Iacono, C.; Bortolasi, L.; Facci, E.; Nifosì, F.; Pachera, S.; Ruzzenente, A.; Guglielmi, A. The Dagradi-Serio-Iacono Operation Central Pancreatectomy. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2007, 11, 364–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Xiao, W.; Zhu, J.; Peng, L.; Hong, L.; Sun, G.; Li, Y. The Role of Central Pancreatectomy in Pancreatic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. HPB 2018, 20, 896–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Li, Y.; Li, Y. Central versus Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign or Low-Grade Malignant Lesions in the Pancreatic Neck and Proximal Body. Am. Surg. 2019, 85, 1239–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dragomir, M.P.; Sabo, A.A.; Petrescu, G.E.D.; Li, Y.; Dumitrascu, T. Central Pancreatectomy: A Comprehensive, up-to-Date Meta-Analysis. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2019, 404, 945–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Klotz, R.; Schilling, C.; Kuner, C.; Hinz, U.; Klaiber, U.; Holze, M.; Tjaden, C.; Loos, M.; Büchler, M.W.; Hackert, T. Central Pancreatectomy Prevents Postoperative Diabetes. J. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat. Sci. 2022, jhbp.1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Regmi, P.; Yang, Q.; Hu, H.-J.; Liu, F.; Karn, H.R.; Ma, W.-J.; Ran, C.-D.; Li, F.-Y. Overall Postoperative Morbidity and Pancreatic Fistula Are Relatively Higher after Central Pancreatectomy than Distal Pancreatic Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BioMed Res. Int. 2020, 2020, 7038907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Goudard, Y.; Gaujoux, S.; Dokmak, S.; Cros, J.; Couvelard, A.; Palazzo, M.; Ronot, M.; Vullierme, M.-P.; Ruszniewski, P.; Belghiti, J.; et al. Reappraisal of Central Pancreatectomy: A 12-Year Single-Center Experience. JAMA Surg. 2014, 149, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ouyang, L.; Liu, R.; Ren, Y.; Nie, G.; He, T.; Li, G.; Zhou, Y.; Huang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, X.; et al. Nomogram Predicts CR-POPF in Open Central Pancreatectomy Patients with Benign or Low-Grade Malignant Pancreatic Neoplasms. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 1030080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Paiella, S.; De Pastena, M.; Faustini, F.; Landoni, L.; Pollini, T.; Bonamini, D.; Giuliani, T.; Bassi, C.; Esposito, A.; Tuveri, M.; et al. Central Pancreatectomy for Benign or Low-Grade Malignant Pancreatic Lesions—A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis of 116 Cases. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 45, 788–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Beger, H.G.; Poch, B.; Vasilescu, C. Benign Cystic Neoplasm and Endocrine Tumours of the Pancreas—When and How to Operate—An Overview. Int. J. Surg. 2014, 12, 606–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kamarajah, S.K.; Bundred, J.R.; Lin, A.; Halle-Smith, J.; Pande, R.; Sutcliffe, R.; Harrison, E.M.; Roberts, K.J.; PARANOIA Study Group. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Factors Associated with Post-Operative Pancreatic Fistula Following Pancreatoduodenectomy. ANZ J. Surg. 2021, 91, 810–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Zhang, B.; Yuan, Q.; Li, S.; Xu, Z.; Chen, X.; Li, L.; Shang, D. Risk Factors of Clinically Relevant Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula after Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicine 2022, 101, e29757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Müller, M.W.; Friess, H.; Kleeff, J.; Hinz, U.; Wente, M.N.; Paramythiotis, D.; Berberat, P.O.; Ceyhan, G.O.; Büchler, M.W. Middle Segmental Pancreatic Resection: An Option to Treat Benign Pancreatic Body Lesions. Ann. Surg. 2006, 244, 909–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Adham, M.; Giunippero, A.; Hervieu, V.; Courbière, M.; Partensky, C. Central Pancreatectomy: Single-Center Experience of 50 Cases. Arch. Surg. Chic. Ill 1960 2008, 143, 175–180; discussion 180–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. DiNorcia, J.; Ahmed, L.; Lee, M.K.; Reavey, P.L.; Yakaitis, E.A.; Lee, J.A.; Schrope, B.A.; Chabot, J.A.; Allendorf, J.D. Better Preservation of Endocrine Function after Central versus Distal Pancreatectomy for Mid-Gland Lesions. Surgery 2010, 148, 1247–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Machado, M.A.C.; Surjan, R.C.; Epstein, M.G.; Makdissi, F.F. Laparoscopic Central Pancreatectomy: A Review of 51 Cases. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. Percutan. Tech. 2013, 23, 486–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, S.; Zhan, Q.; Jin, J.; Wu, Z.; Shi, Y.; Cheng, D.; Chen, H.; Deng, X.; Shen, B.; Peng, C.; et al. Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic versus Open Middle Pancreatectomy: Short-Term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Surg. Endosc. 2017, 31, 962–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Shrikhande, S.V.; Sivasanker, M.; Vollmer, C.M.; Friess, H.; Besselink, M.G.; Fingerhut, A.; Yeo, C.J.; Fernandez-delCastillo, C.; Dervenis, C.; Halloran, C.; et al. Pancreatic Anastomosis after Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Position Statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 2017, 161, 1221–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lyu, Y.; Li, T.; Wang, B.; Cheng, Y.; Zhao, S. Selection of Pancreaticojejunostomy Technique after Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Duct-to-Mucosa Anastomosis Is Not Better than Invagination Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis. Medicine 2018, 97, e12621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Wang, W.; Zhang, Z.; Gu, C.; Liu, Q.; Liang, Z.; He, W.; Chen, J.; Lai, J. The Optimal Choice for Pancreatic Anastomosis after Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials. Int. J. Surg. 2018, 57, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Xiang, Y.; Wu, J.; Lin, C.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, D.; Xie, Y.; Yao, X.; Zhang, X. Pancreatic Reconstruction Techniques after Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Review of the Literature. Expert Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019, 13, 797–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kone, L.B.; Maker, V.K.; Banulescu, M.; Maker, A.V. A Propensity Score Analysis of over 12,000 Pancreaticojejunal Anastomoses after Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Does Technique Impact the Clinically Relevant Fistula Rate? HPB 2020, 22, 1394–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ratnayake, C.B.B.; Wells, C.I.; Kamarajah, S.K.; Loveday, B.; Sen, G.; French, J.J.; White, S.; Pandanaboyana, S. Critical Appraisal of the Techniques of Pancreatic Anastomosis Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Network Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Surg. 2020, 73, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Cao, Z.; Luo, W.; Qiu, J.; Liu, Y.; Zheng, L.; Zhang, T. Is Invagination Anastomosis More Effective in Reducing Clinically Relevant Pancreatic Fistula for Soft Pancreas After Pancreaticoduodenectomy Under Novel Fistula Criteria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, S.; Lan, Z.; Zhang, J.; Chen, Y.; Xu, Q.; Jiang, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, C.; Bi, X.; Huang, X. Duct-to-Mucosa versus Invagination Pancreaticojejunostomy after Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Meta-Analysis. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 46449–46460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. El Nakeeb, A.; El Hemaly, M.; Askr, W.; Abd Ellatif, M.; Hamed, H.; Elghawalby, A.; Attia, M.; Abdallah, T.; Abd ElWahab, M. Comparative Study between Duct to Mucosa and Invagination Pancreaticojejunostomy after Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Prospective Randomized Study. Int. J. Surg. 2015, 16, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Li, Y.; Hua, R. The Optimal Choice for Pancreatic Anastomosis after Pancreaticoduodenectomy. Minerva Surg. 2022, 77, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hai, H.; Li, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Cheng, Y.; Liu, Z.; Gong, J.; Deng, Y. Duct-to-Mucosa versus Other Types of Pancreaticojejunostomy for the Prevention of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2022, 2022, 1465–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Petrova, E.; Suurmeijer, J.A.; Mackay, T.M.; Bolm, L.; Lapshyn, H.; Honselmann, K.C.; van Santvoort, H.C.; Koerkamp, B.G.; Wellner, U.F.; Keck, T.; et al. Outcome of Pancreatic Anastomoses during Pancreatoduodenectomy in Two National Audits. Surgery 2021, 170, 1799–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Venara, A.; de Franco, V.; Mucci, S.; Frampas, E.; Lermite, E.; Regenet, N.; Hamy, A. Central Pancreatectomy: Comparison of Results According to the Type of Anastomosis. J. Visc. Surg. 2012, 149, e153–e158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Borel, F.; Ouaissi, M.; Merdrignac, A.; Venara, A.; De Franco, V.; Sulpice, L.; Hamy, A.; Regenet, N. Pancreatico-Jejunostomy Decreases Post-Operative Pancreatic Fistula Incidence and Severity after Central Pancreatectomy: Pancreatic Anastomosis in Central Pancreatectomy. ANZ J. Surg. 2018, 88, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, Z.-Z.; Zhao, G.-D.; Zhao, Z.-M.; Hu, M.-G.; Tan, X.-L.; Zhang, X.; Gao, Y.-X.; Liu, R. A Comparative Study of End-to-End Pancreatic Anastomosis versus Pancreaticojejunostomy after Robotic Central Pancreatectomy. Updates Surg. 2021, 73, 967–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Dumitrascu, T.; Stanciulea, O.; Herlea, V.; Tomulescu, V.; Ionescu, M. Central Pancreatectomy for Pancreatoblastoma in a 16-Year-Old Girl. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2011, 46, e17–e21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Popescu, I. Central pancreatectomy. In Atlas of Advanced Operative Surgery; Khatri, V.P., Ed.; Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-1-4160-4109-2. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dindo, D.; Demartines, N.; Clavien, P.-A. Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal with Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey. Ann. Surg. 2004, 240, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Bassi, C.; Dervenis, C.; Butturini, G.; Fingerhut, A.; Yeo, C.; Izbicki, J.; Neoptolemos, J.; Sarr, M.; Traverso, W.; Buchler, M. Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: An International Study Group (ISGPF) Definition. Surgery 2005, 138, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Wente, M.N.; Veit, J.A.; Bassi, C.; Dervenis, C.; Fingerhut, A.; Gouma, D.J.; Izbicki, J.R.; Neoptolemos, J.P.; Padbury, R.T.; Sarr, M.G.; et al. Postpancreatectomy Hemorrhage (PPH)—An International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) Definition. Surgery 2007, 142, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Wente, M.N.; Bassi, C.; Dervenis, C.; Fingerhut, A.; Gouma, D.J.; Izbicki, J.R.; Neoptolemos, J.P.; Padbury, R.T.; Sarr, M.G.; Traverso, L.W.; et al. Delayed Gastric Emptying (DGE) after Pancreatic Surgery: A Suggested Definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 2007, 142, 761–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Callery, M.P.; Pratt, W.B.; Kent, T.S.; Chaikof, E.L.; Vollmer, C.M. A Prospectively Validated Clinical Risk Score Accurately Predicts Pancreatic Fistula after Pancreatoduodenectomy. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2013, 216, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Slankamenac, K.; Graf, R.; Barkun, J.; Puhan, M.A.; Clavien, P.-A. The Comprehensive Complication Index: A Novel Continuous Scale to Measure Surgical Morbidity. Ann. Surg. 2013, 258, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Singh, A.N.; Pal, S.; Mangla, V.; Kilambi, R.; George, J.; Dash, N.R.; Chattopadhyay, T.K.; Sahni, P. Pancreaticojejunostomy: Does the Technique Matter? A Randomized Trial. J. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 117, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Senda, Y.; Shimizu, Y.; Natsume, S.; Ito, S.; Komori, K.; Abe, T.; Matsuo, K.; Sano, T. Randomized Clinical Trial of Duct-to-Mucosa versus Invagination Pancreaticojejunostomy after Pancreatoduodenectomy. Br. J. Surg. 2017, 105, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Bai, X.; Zhang, Q.; Gao, S.; Lou, J.; Li, G.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, T.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, Y.; Liang, T. Duct-to-Mucosa vs. Invagination for Pancreaticojejunostomy after Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial from a Single Surgeon. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2016, 222, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bassi, C.; Falconi, M.; Molinari, E.; Mantovani, W.; Butturini, G.; Gumbs, A.A.; Salvia, R.; Pederzoli, P. Duct-to-Mucosa versus End-to-Side Pancreaticojejunostomy Reconstruction after Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Results of a Prospective Randomized Trial. Surgery 2003, 134, 766–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Langrehr, J.M.; Bahra, M.; Jacob, D.; Glanemann, M.; Neuhaus, P. Prospective Randomized Comparison between a New Mattress Technique and Cattell (Duct-to-Mucosa) Pancreaticojejunostomy for Pancreatic Resection. World J. Surg. 2005, 29, 1111–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Berger, A.C.; Howard, T.J.; Kennedy, E.P.; Sauter, P.K.; Bower-Cherry, M.; Dutkevitch, S.; Hyslop, T.; Schmidt, M.C.; Rosato, E.L.; Lavu, H.; et al. Does Type of Pancreaticojejunostomy after Pancreaticoduodenectomy Decrease Rate of Pancreatic Fistula? A Randomized, Prospective, Dual-Institution Trial. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2009, 208, 738–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rivas, L.; Zettervall, S.L.; Ju, T.; Olafson, S.; Holzmacher, J.; Lin, P.P.; Vaziri, K. The Effect of Pancreaticojejunostomy Technique on Fistula Formation Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy in the Soft Pancreas. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2019, 23, 2211–2215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dumitrascu, T.; Barbu, S.T.; Purnichescu-Purtan, R.; Ionescu, M.; Popescu, I. Risk Factors for Surgical Complications after Central Pancreatectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 2012, 59, 592–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wolk, S.; Distler, M.; Kersting, S.; Weitz, J.; Saeger, H.-D.; Grützmann, R. Evaluation of Central Pancreatectomy and Pancreatic Enucleation as Pancreatic Resections—A Comparison. Int. J. Surg. 2015, 22, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Qin, H.; Luo, L.; Zhu, Z.; Huang, J. Pancreaticogastrostomy Has Advantages over Pancreaticojejunostomy on Pancreatic Fistula after Pancreaticoduodenectomy. A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Int. J. Surg. 2016, 36, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ricci, C.; Casadei, R.; Taffurelli, G.; Pacilio, C.A.; Beltrami, D.; Minni, F. Is Pancreaticogastrostomy Safer than Pancreaticojejunostomy after Pancreaticoduodenectomy? A Meta-Regression Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Pancreatology 2017, 17, 805–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Dumitraşcu, T.; Braşoveanu, V.; Dima, S.; Popescu, I. The Optimal Management of Distal Pancreatic Stump After Pancreatico-Duodenectomy: Different Indications for Gastric and Jejunal Anastomoses. Chir. Buchar. Rom. 1990 2022, 117, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jpm 13 00858 g001 550
Figure 1. Comparative analysis of fistula risk scores [42] between the WJ and the PJ groups of patients with CP (12 patients vs. 17 patients) (WJ—duct-to-mucosa distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; PJ—invagination distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; CP—central pancreatectomy).
Figure 1. Comparative analysis of fistula risk scores [42] between the WJ and the PJ groups of patients with CP (12 patients vs. 17 patients) (WJ—duct-to-mucosa distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; PJ—invagination distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; CP—central pancreatectomy).
Jpm 13 00858 g001
Jpm 13 00858 g002 550
Figure 2. Comparative Kaplan–Meier curves of the mean overall survival time between the WJ and the PJ groups of patients with CP (12 patients vs. 17 patients) (WJ—duct-to-mucosa distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; PJ—invagination distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; CP—central pancreatectomy).
Figure 2. Comparative Kaplan–Meier curves of the mean overall survival time between the WJ and the PJ groups of patients with CP (12 patients vs. 17 patients) (WJ—duct-to-mucosa distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; PJ—invagination distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; CP—central pancreatectomy).
Jpm 13 00858 g002
Jpm 13 00858 g003 550
Figure 3. Intraoperative aspects of the duct-to-mucosa anastomosis of the distal pancreatic stump after central pancreatectomy: (a) before the anastomosis—the white arrow marks the Wirsung duct; (b) during the anastomosis—the white arrow marks the duct-to-mucosa anastomosis with interrupted sutures, the posterior layer completed (P—pancreatic head; D—distal pancreatic stump; J—jejunum; pv—portal vein).
Figure 3. Intraoperative aspects of the duct-to-mucosa anastomosis of the distal pancreatic stump after central pancreatectomy: (a) before the anastomosis—the white arrow marks the Wirsung duct; (b) during the anastomosis—the white arrow marks the duct-to-mucosa anastomosis with interrupted sutures, the posterior layer completed (P—pancreatic head; D—distal pancreatic stump; J—jejunum; pv—portal vein).
Jpm 13 00858 g003
Jpm 13 00858 g004 550
Figure 4. Intraoperative aspects of the jejunal invagination anastomosis of the distal pancreatic stump after central pancreatectomy: (a) before the anastomosis, no enlarged Wirsung duct; (b) after the anastomosis was completed—the white arrow marks the jejunal invagination of the distal pancreatic stump, end-to-side (P—pancreatic head; D—distal pancreatic stump; J—jejunum; pv—portal vein; sv—splenic vein; sa—splenic artery).
Figure 4. Intraoperative aspects of the jejunal invagination anastomosis of the distal pancreatic stump after central pancreatectomy: (a) before the anastomosis, no enlarged Wirsung duct; (b) after the anastomosis was completed—the white arrow marks the jejunal invagination of the distal pancreatic stump, end-to-side (P—pancreatic head; D—distal pancreatic stump; J—jejunum; pv—portal vein; sv—splenic vein; sa—splenic artery).
Jpm 13 00858 g004
Table
Table 1. Comparative analyses of demographics and preoperative parameters between the WJ and the PJ groups of patients with CP (12 patients vs. 17 patients).
Table 1. Comparative analyses of demographics and preoperative parameters between the WJ and the PJ groups of patients with CP (12 patients vs. 17 patients).
ParameterWJ Group
(12 Patients)		PJ Group
(17 Patients)		p Value
Age, years51 (14–71)36 (16–66)0.412, ns
Female sex7 patients (58.3%)12 patients (70.6%)0.694, ns
Body mass index, kg/m229.5 (18.5–42)22 (18.5–36.5)0.126, ns
Smoking5 patients (41.7%)4 patients (23.5%)0.422, ns
Alcohol abuse2 patients (16.7%)1 patient (5.9%)0.553, ns
Cardiovascular comorbidities6 patients (50%)3 patients (17.6%)0.105, ns
Diabetes mellitus2 patients (16.7%)2 patients (11.8%)1, ns
Chronic pancreatitis1 patient (8.3%)1 patient (5.9%)1, ns
ASA score ≥34 patients (33.3%)3 patients (17.6%)0.402, ns
Karnofsky score, points90 (80–100)90 (80–100)1, ns
WJ—duct-to-mucosa distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; PJ—invagination distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; ASA—American Society of Anesthesiologists; CP—central pancreatectomy.
Table
Table 2. Comparative analyses of intraoperative parameters between the WJ and the PJ groups of patients with CP (12 patients vs. 17 patients).
Table 2. Comparative analyses of intraoperative parameters between the WJ and the PJ groups of patients with CP (12 patients vs. 17 patients).
ParameterWJ Group
(12 Patients)		PJ Group
(17 Patients)		p Value
Associated procedures2 patients (16.7%)2 patients (11.8%)1, ns
Soft pancreas texture10 patients (83.3%)16 patients (94.1%)0.553, ns
Wirsung duct diameter, mm3 (2–3)1 (1–6)<0.0003
Operative time, min195 (120–480)140 (100–205)0.012
Estimated blood loss, ml125 (50–500)50 (50–300)0.138, ns
Malignant pathology2 patients (16.7%)2 patients (11.8%)1, ns
Neuroendocrine pathology2 patients (16.7%)5 patients (29.4%)0.205, ns
Tumor diameter, cm3 (2–14)2.7 (1.1–6)0.347, ns
Pancreatic Fistula Risk Score [42], points5 (3–6)7 (2–7)<0.001
High-pancreatic fistula risk group [42]0 patients (0%)9 patients (52.9%)0.003
WJ—duct-to-mucosa distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; PJ—invagination distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; CP—central pancreatectomy.
Table
Table 3. Comparative analyses of early postoperative outcomes between the WJ and the PJ groups of patients with CP (12 patients vs. 17 patients).
Table 3. Comparative analyses of early postoperative outcomes between the WJ and the PJ groups of patients with CP (12 patients vs. 17 patients).
ParameterWJ Group
(12 Patients)		PJ Group
(17 Patients)		p Value
Overall complications8 patients (66.7%)10 patients (58.8%)0.716, ns
Severe complications (i.e., grade 3–4 Dindo)4 patients (33.3%)3 patients (17.6%)0.402, ns
90-day mortality0 patients (0%)0 patients (0%)1, ns
Clinically relevant POPF (i.e., grade B–C)5 patients (41.7%)7 patients (41.2%)1, ns
Clinically relevant DGE (i.e., grade B–C)2 patients (16.7%)3 patients (17.6%)1, ns
Clinically relevant PPH (i.e., grade B–C)2 patients (16.7%)2 patients (11.8%)1, ns
Postoperative blood transfusions for complications2 patients (16.7%)3 patients (17.6%)1, ns
Relaparotomy for complications4 patients (33.3%)3 patients (17.6%)0.402, ns
Postoperative hospital stays, days20 (6–45)12 (7–32)0.170, ns
Postoperative abdominal drainage time, days10 (5–44)5 (5–28)0.373, ns
Comprehensive Complication Index [43]8.7 (0–56.1)8.7 (0–47.7)0.535, ns
WJ—duct-to-mucosa distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; PJ—invagination distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; POPF—postoperative pancreatic fistula; DGE—delayed gastric emptying; PPH—post pancreatectomy hemorrhage; CP—central pancreatectomy.
Table
Table 4. Comparative analyses of late postoperative outcomes between the WJ and the PJ groups of patients with CP (12 patients vs. 17 patients).
Table 4. Comparative analyses of late postoperative outcomes between the WJ and the PJ groups of patients with CP (12 patients vs. 17 patients).
ParameterWJ Group
(12 Patients)		PJ Group
(17 Patients)		p Value
Follow-up time, months203 (28–251)157 (46–225)0.019
Overall survival time *, months 232 ± 18 215 ± 10 0.780, ns
New-onset or worsening diabetes mellitus2 patients (16.7%)2 patients (11.8%)1, ns
Clinically relevant postoperative exocrine pancreatic insufficiency0 patients (0%)0 patients (0%)1, ns
WJ—duct-to-mucosa distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; PJ—invagination distal pancreatic stump anastomoses with the jejunum; * Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation because the medians were not reached.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dumitrascu, T.; Popescu, I. Outcomes of Duct-to-Mucosa vs. Invagination Pancreatojejunostomy: Toward a Personalized Approach for Distal Pancreatic Stump Anastomosis in Central Pancreatectomy? J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13, 858. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13050858

AMA Style

Dumitrascu T, Popescu I. Outcomes of Duct-to-Mucosa vs. Invagination Pancreatojejunostomy: Toward a Personalized Approach for Distal Pancreatic Stump Anastomosis in Central Pancreatectomy? Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2023; 13(5):858. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13050858

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dumitrascu, Traian, and Irinel Popescu. 2023. "Outcomes of Duct-to-Mucosa vs. Invagination Pancreatojejunostomy: Toward a Personalized Approach for Distal Pancreatic Stump Anastomosis in Central Pancreatectomy?" Journal of Personalized Medicine 13, no. 5: 858. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13050858

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop