Variation in pancreatoduodenectomy as delivered in two national audits. BJS 2019; 106: 747-755.
Published: 1st February 2019
Authors: T. M. Mackay, U. F. Wellner, L. B. van Rijssen, T. F. Stoop, O. R. Busch, B. Groot Koerkamp et al.
Nationwide audits facilitate quality and outcome assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy. Differences may exist between countries but studies comparing nationwide outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy based on audits are lacking. This study aimed to compare the German and Dutch audits for external data validation.
Anonymized data from patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy between 2014 and 2016 were extracted from the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery StuDoQ|Pancreas and Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit, and compared using descriptive statistics. Univariable and multivariable risk analyses were undertaken.
Overall, 4495 patients were included, 2489 in Germany and 2006 in the Netherlands. Adenocarcinoma was a more frequent indication for pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. German patients had worse ASA fitness grades, but Dutch patients had more pulmonary co‐morbidity. Dutch patients underwent more minimally invasive surgery and venous resections, but fewer multivisceral resections. No difference was found in rates of grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, grade C postpancreatectomy haemorrhage and in‐hospital mortality. There was more centralization in the Netherlands (1·3 versus 13·3 per cent of pancreatoduodenectomies in very low‐volume centres; P < 0·001). In multivariable analysis, both hospital stay (difference 2·49 (95 per cent c.i. 1·18 to 3·80) days) and risk of reoperation (odds ratio (OR) 1·55, 95 per cent c.i. 1·22 to 1·97) were higher in the German audit, whereas risk of postoperative pneumonia (OR 0·57, 0·37 to 0·88) and readmission (OR 0·38, 0·30 to 0·49) were lower. Several baseline and surgical characteristics, including hospital volume, but not country, predicted mortality.
This comparison of the German and Dutch audits showed variation in case mix, surgical technique and centralization for pancreatoduodenectomy, but no difference in mortality and pancreas‐specific complications.Full text
You may also be interested in
Clinical value of additional resection of a margin‐positive distal bile duct in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. BJS 2019; 106: 774-782.
Authors: S. Otsuka, T. Ebata, Y. Yokoyama, T. Mizuno, T. Tsukahara, Y. Shimoyama et al.
Authors: W. S. Tummers, J. V. Groen, B. G. Sibinga Mulder, A. Farina‐Sarasqueta, J. Morreau, H. Putter et al.
Multicentre study of multidisciplinary team assessment of pancreatic cancer resectability and treatment allocation. BJS 2019; 106: 756-764.
Authors: J. Kirkegård, E. K. Aahlin, M. Al‐Saiddi, S. O. Bratlie, M. Coolsen, R. J. de Haas et al.
Outcomes following pancreatic surgery using three different thromboprophylaxis regimens. BJS 2019; 106: 765-773.
Authors: R. G. Hanna‐Sawires, J. V. Groen, F. A. Klok, R. A. E. M. Tollenaar, W. E. Mesker, R. J. Swijnenburg et al.
Major hepatectomy with or without pancreatoduodenectomy for advanced gallbladder cancer. BJS 2019; 106: 626-635.
Authors: T. Mizuno, T. Ebata, Y. Yokoyama, T. Igami, J. Yamaguchi, S. Onoe et al.
Systematic review of clinical prediction models for survival after surgery for resectable pancreatic cancer. BJS 2019; 106: 342-354.
Authors: M. Strijker, J. W. Chen, T. H. Mungroop, N. B. Jamieson, C. H. van Eijck, E. W. Steyerberg et al.
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized trial of oral versus enteral feeding for patients with postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. BJS 2019; 106: 190-198.
Authors: J.‐M. Wu, T.‐C. Kuo, H.‐A. Chen, C.‐H. Wu, S.‐R. Lai, C.‐Y. Yang et al.
Clinical and experimental studies of intraperitoneal lipolysis and the development of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery. BJS 2019; 106: 616-625.
Authors: Y. Uchida, T. Masui, K. Nakano, A. Yogo, A. Sato, K. Nagai et al.
Multicentre propensity score‐matched study of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for colorectal liver metastases. BJS 2019; 106: 783-789.
Authors: M. J. van der Poel, L. Barkhatov, D. Fuks, G. Berardi, F. Cipriani, A. Aljaiuossi et al.
Proposal for a new classification for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma based on tumour depth. BJS 2019; 106: 427-435.
Authors: K. Shinohara, T. Ebata, Y. Shimoyama, M. Nakaguro, T. Mizuno, K. Matsuo et al.
Systematic review of the quantity and quality of randomized clinical trials in pancreatic surgery. BJS 2019; 106: 23-31.
Authors: F. J. Hüttner, L. Capdeville, F. Pianka, A. Ulrich, T. Hackert, M. W. Büchler et al.
Systematic review of management of incidental gallbladder cancer after cholecystectomy. BJS 2019; 106: 32-45.
Authors: K. Søreide, R. V. Guest, E. M. Harrison, T. J. Kendall, O. J. Garden, S. J. Wigmore et al.