Biliary leakage following pancreaticoduodenectomy: Prevalence, risk factors and management.

BACKGROUND: Few studies investigated biliary leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) especially when compared to postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). This study was to determine the incidence of biliary leakage after PD, predisposing factors of biliary leakage, and its management. METHODS: We retrospectively studied all patients who underwent PD from January 2008 to December 2017 at Gastrointestinal Surgery Center, Mansoura University, Egypt. According to occurrence of postoperative biliary leakage, patients were divided into two groups. Group (1) included patients who developed biliary leakage and group (2) included patients without identified biliary leakage. The preoperative data, operative details, and postoperative morbidity and mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: The study included 555 patients. Forty-four patients (7.9%) developed biliary leakage. Ten patients (1.8%) had concomitant POPF. Multivariate analysis identified obesity and time needed for hepaticojejunostomy reconstruction as independent risk factors of biliary leakage, and no history of preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatiography (ERCP) as protective factor. Biliary leakage from hepaticojejunostomy after PD leads to a significant increase in development of delayed gastric emptying, and wound infection. The median hospital stay and time to resume oral intake were significantly greater in the biliary leakage group. Non-surgical management was needed in 40 patients (90.9%). Only 4 patients (9.1%) required re-exploration due to biliary peritonitis and associated POPF. The mortality rate in the biliary leakage group was significantly higher than that of the non-biliary leakage group (6.8% vs 3.9%, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity and time needed for hepaticojejunostomy reconstruction are independent risk factors of biliary leakage, and no history of preoperative ERCP is protective factor. Biliary leakage increases the risk of morbidity and mortality especially if concomitant with POPF. However, biliary leakage can be conservatively managed in majority of cases.

[Application of bundles of intervention in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma anastomotic leak].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the application of bundles of intervention in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma anastomotic leak. METHODS: From January 2014 to May 2015, 44 cases of esophageal carcinoma anastomotic fistula were treated by bundles of intervention (through the collection of a series of evidence-based treatment and care measures for the treatment of diseases) in Department of Thoracic Surgery, Huai'an First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University (bundles of intervention group), and 68 patients with esophageal carcinoma postoperative anastomotic leak from December 2013 to January 2012 receiving traditional therapy were selected as the control group. The clinical and nutritional indexes of both groups were compared. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in general data and proportion of anastomotic leak between the two groups. Eleven patients died during hospital stay, including 3 cases in bundles of intervention group(6.8%) and 8 cases in control group (11.8%) without significant difference(P = 0.390). In bundles of intervention group, 1 case died of type III( intrathoracic anastomotic leak, 2 died of type IIII( intrathoracic anastomotic leak. In control group, 2 cases died of type III( cervical anastomotic leak, 2 died of type III( intrathoracic anastomotic leak and 4 of type IIII( intrathoracic anastomotic leak. The mortality of bundles of intervention group was lower than that of control group. The duration of moderate fever [(4.1±2.4) days vs. (8.3±4.4) days, t=6.171, P=0.001], the time of antibiotic use [(8.2±3.8) days vs.(12.8±5.2) days, t=5.134, P = 0.001], the healing time [(21.5±12.7) days vs.(32.2±15.8) days, t=3.610, P=0.001] were shorter, and the average hospitalization expenses[(63±12) thousand yuan vs. (74±19) thansand yuan, t=3.564, P=0.001] was lower in bundles of intervention group than those in control group. Forty-eight hours after occurrence of anastomotic leak, the levels of hemoglobin, albumin and prealbumin were similar in both groups. However, at the time of fistula healing, the levels of hemoglobin [(110.6±10.5) g/L vs.(103.8±11.1) g/L, t=3.090, P=0.002], albumin [(39.2±5.2) g/L vs.(36.3±5.9) g/L, t=2.543, P=0.013] and prealbumin [(129.3±61.9) g/L vs.(94.1±66.4) g/L, t=2.688, P=0.008] were significantly higher in bundles of intervention group. CONCLUSION: In the treatment of postoperative esophageal carcinoma anastomotic leak, application of bundles of intervention concept can significantly improve the nutritional status and improve the clinical outcomes.

Morbidity, mortality, cost, and survival estimates of gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak, a potentially deadly postoperative occurrence, particularly interests surgeons performing gastrointestinal procedures. We investigated incidence, cost, and impact on survival of anastomotic leak in gastrointestinal surgical procedures at an academic center. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a chart review of American College of Surgeons NSQIP operative procedures with gastrointestinal anastomosis from January 1, 2003 through April 30, 2006. Each case with an American College of Surgeons NSQIP 30-day postoperative complication was systematically reviewed for evidence of anastomotic leak for 12 months after the operative date. We tracked patients for up to 10 years to determine survival. Morbidity, mortality, and cost for patients with gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks were compared with patients with anastomoses that remained intact. RESULTS: Unadjusted analyses revealed significant differences between patients who had anastomotic leaks develop and those who did not: morbidity (98.0% vs. 28.4%; p < 0.0001), length of stay (13 vs. 5 days; p ≤ 0.0001), 30-day mortality (8.4% vs. 2.5%; p < 0.0001), long-term mortality (36.4% vs. 20.0%; p ≤ 0.0001), and hospital costs (chi-square [2] = 359.8; p < 0.0001). Multivariable regression demonstrated that anastomotic leak was associated with congestive heart failure (odds ratio [OR] = 31.5; 95% CI, 2.6-381.4; p = 0.007), peripheral vascular disease (OR = 4.6; 95% CI, 1.0-20.5; p = 0.048), alcohol abuse (OR = 3.7; 95% CI, 1.6-8.3; p = 0.002), steroid use (OR = 2.3; 95% CI: 1.1-5.0; p = 0.027), abnormal sodium (OR = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7; p = 0.002), weight loss (OR = 0.2; 95% CI, 0.06-0.7; p = 0.011), and location of anastomosis: rectum (OR = 14.0; 95% CI, 2.6-75.5; p = 0.002), esophagus (OR = 13.0; 95% CI, 3.6-46.2; p < 0.0001), pancreas (OR = 12.4; 95% CI, 3.3-46.2; p < 0.0001), small intestine (OR = 6.9; 95% CI, 1.8-26.4; p = 0.005), and colon (OR = 5.2; 95% CI, 1.5-17.7; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Significant morbidity, mortality, and cost accompany gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks. Patients who experience an anastomotic leak have lower rates of survival at 30 days and long term.

The burden of gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks: an evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and economic burden associated with anastomotic leaks following colorectal surgery. METHODS: Retrospective data (January 2008 to December 2010) were analyzed from patients who had colorectal surgery with and without postoperative leaks, using the Premier Perspective™ database. Data on in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), re-admissions, postoperative infection, and costs were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses, and the propensity score matching (PSM) and generalized linear models (GLM). RESULTS: Of the patients, 6,174 (6.18 %) had anastomotic leaks within 30 days after colorectal surgery. Patients with leaks had 1.3 times higher 30-day re-admission rates and 0.8-1.9 times higher postoperative infection rates as compared with patients without leaks (P < 0.001 for both). Anastomotic leaks incurred additional LOS and hospital costs of 7.3 days and $24,129, respectively, only within the first hospitalization. Per 1,000 patients undergoing colorectal surgery, the economic burden associated with anastomotic leaks--including hospitalization and re-admission--was established as 9,500 days in prolonged LOS and $28.6 million in additional costs. Similar results were obtained from both the PSM and GLM for assessing total costs for hospitalization and re-admission. CONCLUSIONS: Anastomotic leaks in colorectal surgery increase the total clinical and economic burden by a factor of 0.6-1.9 for a 30-day re-admission, postoperative infection, LOS, and hospital costs.

Outcomes based on risk assessment of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leakage (AL) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, high reoperation rates, and increased hospital length of stay. Here we investigated the risk factors for AL after anterior resection for rectal cancer with a double stapling technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data for 460 patients who underwent primary anterior resection with a double stapling technique for rectal carcinoma at a single institution from 2003 to 2007 were prospectively collected. All patients experienced a total mesorectal excision (TME) operation. Clinical AL was defined as the presence of leakage signs and confirmed by diagnostic work-up according to ICD-9 codes 997.4, 567.22 (abdominopelvic abscess), and 569.81 (fistula of the intestine). Univariate and logistic regression analyses of 20 variables were undertaken to determine risk factors for AL. Survival was analysed using the Cox regression method. RESULTS: AL was noted in 35 (7.6%) of 460 patients with rectal cancer. Median age of the patients was 65 (50-74) and 161 (35%) were male. The diagnosis of AL was made between the 6th and 12th postoperative day (POD; mean 8th POD). After univariate and multivariate analysis, age (p=0.004), gender (p=0.007), tumor site (p<0.001), preoperative body mass index (BMI) (p<0.001), the reduction of TSGF on 5th POD less than 10U/ml (p=0.044) and the pH value of pelvic dranage less than or equal to 6.978 on 3rd POD (p<0.001) were selected as 6 independent risk factors for AL. It was shown that significant differences in survival of the patients were AL-related (p<0.001), high ASA score related (p=0.036), high-level BMI related (p=0.007) and advanced TNM stage related (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: AL after anterior resection for rectal carcinoma is related to advanced age, low tumor site, male sex, high preoperative BMI, low pH value of pelvic drainage on POD 3 and a significant reduction of TSGF on POD 5. In addition to their high risk of immediate postoperative morbidity and mortality, AL, worse physical status, severe obesity and advanced TNM stage have similarly negative impact on survival.

Anastomotic leakage as an outcome measure for quality of colorectal cancer surgery.

INTRODUCTION: When comparing mortality rates between hospitals to explore hospital performance, there is an important role for adjustment for differences in case-mix. Identifying outcome measures that are less influenced by differences in case-mix may be valuable. The main goal of this study was to explore whether hospital differences in anastomotic leakage (AL) and postoperative mortality are due to differences in case-mix or to differences in treatment factors. METHODS: Data of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit were used. Case-mix factors and treatment-related factors were identified from the literature and their association with AL and mortality were analysed with logistic regression. Hospital differences in observed AL and mortality rates, and adjusted rates based on the logistic regression models were shown. The reduction in hospital variance after adjustment was analysed with Levene's test for equality of variances. RESULTS: 17 of 22 case-mix factors and 4 of 11 treatment factors related to AL derived from the literature were available in the database. Variation in observed AL rates between hospitals was large with a maximum rate of 17%. This variation could not be attributed to differences in case-mix but more to differences in treatment factors. Hospital variation in observed mortality rates was significantly reduced after adjustment for differences in case-mix. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital variation in AL is relatively independent of differences in case-mix. In contrast to 'postoperative mortality' the observed AL rates of hospitals evaluated in our study were only slightly affected after adjustment for case-mix factors. Therefore, AL rates may be suitable as an outcome indicator for measurement of surgical quality of care.