Post Operative Pancreatitis
Post Operative Pancreatitis
Post Operative Pancreatitis
ABSTRACT
Background: Postoperative pancreatic fistula remains the single most important determinant of morbidity and
mortality following pancreaticoduodenectomy. A new entity was proposed by Saxon Connor “Post-Operative
pancreatitis”, which is defined by raised serum amylase more than the upper limit of institutional serum amylase
value on Post-Operative day 0 or 1. There has been shown to be an association between postoperative pancreatitis and
postoperative pancreatic fistula. We have conducted this study to see the incidence of postoperative pancreatitis and its
association with postoperative pancreatic fistula.
Methods: This was a prospective observational study. All patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy at a tertiary
care center for one and a half years were included. A cut-off value of serum amylase 80U/L was used to make a
diagnosis of postoperative pancreatitis. The patients were followed up for one month. Pancreas specific complications
were defined according to the definition given by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery.
Results: A total of 49 pancreaticoduodenectomies were done in the given period. The incidence of postoperative
pancreatitis was 31(63.3%) and postoperative pancreatic fistula was 19(38.8%). Postoperative pancreatic fistula
was seen in 19(61.2%) of patients having postoperative pancreatitis (P<0.001). Post-operative pancreatitis was also
significantly associated with post pancreatectomy hemorrhage, increased hospital stay, and mortality. In multivariate
analysis, preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage and increased serum amylase on the first postoperative day came out
to be an independent predictor of postoperative pancreatic fistula.
Conclusions: Post-operative Pancreatitis was associated with an increased incidence of Post-operative pancreatic
fistula and other postoperative complications like Post pancreatectomy hemorrhage and mortality.
Keywords: Pancreaticoduodenectomy; postoperative pancreatitis; postoperative pancreatic fistula; post
pancreatectomy haemorrhage
albumin, BMI, operative duration, blood loss, pancreas whereas the negative predictive value was 100%. As POP
texture were similar as shown in Table 1. was determined by serum amylase on POD 0 and POD 1,
we plotted the ROC curve of serum amylase levels and
On comparing patient with POP and without POP; its association with POPF, the AUC for POD 0 and POD 1
POPF rate was 19(61.2%) vs 0(p<0.001), PPH rate was .785 and .881 respectively(Figure1).
was 12(24.5%) vs 2(4.1%)(p=0.039), Mortality rate was
10(20.4%) vs 0(p=0.07), CD≥IIIA complications rate was As POP is functional on serum amylase on POD0/1,
18(36.7%) vs 2(4.1%) (p=0.001) respectively . Rest other initially in multivariate analysis only POP and ERCP were
postoperative events like DGE, Chyle leak, bile leak and included, but POP had a very high odds ratio, hence it
hospital stay were similar as shown in the table 1. was dropped. Due to the multicollinearity of POD 0, it
was excluded from the model. Hence, serum amylase
Out of 31 patients that developed POP, 19(61.2%, on POD 1 and ERCP were included in the multivariate
p<0.001) developed POPF. The Sensitivity of POP to analysis. High serum amylase on POD1 and preoperative
diagnose POPF was 100%, Specificity of 60%. The positive ERCP were independent predictors of POPF(Table 2).
predictive value of POP for diagnosing POPF was 61.3%,
Table 1. Comparing preoperative and intraoperative parameters between the two groups who developed and did
not develop Post Operative Pancreatitis. (α: Fisher exact test, β: Student’s T-test, rest other parameters: Chi-
square test.)
Parameters POP(Present)N=31 POP(Absent)N=18 P-Value
Age β
52.52±10.80 55.67±11.89 0.866
Sex(M: F) 17:14 8:10 0.685
Yes 18(58.1%) 7(38.9%)
Preoperative Biliary drainage 0.196
No 13(41.9%) 11(61.1%)
ERCPα 7(22.6%) 1(5.6%) 0.229
PTBD 10(32.3%) 6(33.3%) 0.938
BMI(Kg/m 2)β
20±2.5 19.37±2.26 0.176
Pre-operative Albumin(g/l) β
35.19±6.64 33.38±6.64 0.335
Operative time(mins) β 434.52±109.14 419.44±103.55 0.637
Intra-operative blood loss β
569.35±397.21 505.56±220.88 0.534
Soft 28(90.3%) 14(77.8%)
Consistency of pancreasα 0.226
Firm 3(9.7%) 4(22.2%)
Main pancreatic duct diameter(mm) 3.03±1.01 3.89±1.74 0.034
Dunking 28(66.7%) 14(33.3%)
PJα 0.398
DTM 3(42.9%) 4(57.1%)
POPF 19(61.2%) 0 <0.001
PPH 12(24.5%) 2(4.1%) 0.039
DGE α
0 1(2.0%) 0.185
Chyle leak α
1(2.0%) 18(36.7%) 0.441
Bile leakα 5(10.2%) 2(2.0%) 0.276
Hospital stay(In days) β
21±14.57 18±12.39 0.186
Mortality α
10(20.4%) 0 0.007
CD≥IIIA 18(36.7%) 2(4.1%) 0.001
Table 2. Univariate and multivariate analysis of different preoperative, intra-operative and post-operative
predictors of POPF. (α: Fisher exact test, β: Student’s T-test, rest other parameters: Chi-square test.)
POPF univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
Yes(n=19) No(n=30) P-value O.R C.I P-value
Age(in years) β 54.42±10.80 53.20±11.59 0.714
Sex 10:9 15:15 0.545
Table 3. Univariate and multivariate analysis of different preoperative, intra-operative and post-operative
predictors of mortality. (α: Fisher exact test, β: Student’s T-test, rest other parameters: Chi-square test.)
Mortality (Univariate analysis) Multivariate analysis
Yes(n=10) No(n=39) P-value O.R C.I P value
Age(yrs) β
57±11.36 52.82±11.14 0.297
Sex(M: F) α
5:5 20:19 1.000
Preoperative
Yes 6(60%) 19(48.7%)
Biliary drainageα 0.725
No 4(40%) 20(51.3%)
ERCPα 3(30%) 5(12.8%) 0.197
PTBD α
3(30%) 14(33.3%) 1.00
BMI β
20.20±3.36 19.9±2.19 0.766
Preoperative Albumin(mmol/L) β 32.30±7.07 35.0519.9± 0.246
Operative Time(min) β
478.00±105.28 416.41±104.16 0.103
Blood loss(ml) β
800.00±545.18 480.77±236.63 0.007 1.005 1.00-1.01 0.041
Pancreas textureα Soft 10(1005) 32(82.1%)
0.179
Firm 0 7(17.9%)
Main Pancreatic duct diameterβ 3.00±1.15 3.44±1.42 0.0378
PJα Dunking 10(23.8%) 32(82.1%)
0.319
DTM 0 7(17.9%)
S.A POD0β 294.30±323.77 150.13±119.36 0.082
S.A POD1β 356.50±372.17 179.31±243.06 0.073
POP α
10(100%) 21(53.8%) 0.008
POPF α
8(80%) 11(28.2%) 0.008
PPHα 9(90%) 5(12.8%) <0.001 49.14 1.85-1299.90 0.02
Bile leak α
6(60%) 2(5.1%) 0.012
DGE α
0 1(2.6%) 0.796
Chyle leakα 0 1(2.6%) 0.796
Rexploration α
6(60%) 0 <0.001
In our study post-operative pancreatitis was significantly The DGE rate was very low in our study, seen in only one
associated with POPF and other postoperative case(2.3%) compared to 13.01% and 30.5% in western
complications . The incidence of POP in our study was literature. One of the reasons behind DGE is said to
63.2% and is similar to other studies where the incidence be intra-abdominal collection secondary to POPF.18 In
ranges between41%-63.4%. Similar to other studies, our study, despite the POPF rate being such high as ~
we observed a statistically significant association 32%, the DGE rate is very low. We perform a Braun’s
between POP and POPF, PPH, CD>IIIA complications, and jejunojejunostomy regularly at our centre and our
mortality.5,6 The AUC of POD1 serum amylase was 88.1 patients have a lower BMI which might be the reason for
for diagnosing POPF, which is a very good discrimination such low DGE.21,22
capacity and the negative predictive value for POP for
POPF is very high, it was similar to a review of 292 Various authors have used other additional parameters
patients who underwent PD in Verona, Italy in 2018.5 along with serum amylase for better characterization of
Hence, by the morning of the first POD, we can identify POP. Measurement of CRP on POD 25,7, CECT abdomen23
those patients who are at high risk of developing POPF. or trend of Serum amylase from POD0-3.24 The addition
of these parameters has increased the predictivity rate
Out of the different parameters in our study, those of POPF.
patients developing POP had smaller main Pancreatic
duct(MPD) than those who did not. Smaller MPD is a There are very few studies regarding the management
proven risk factor for POPF. It is seen that small MPD is of POP. In a study, it was shown that in patients at high
seen in cases other than Carcinoma Head of Pancreas risk for POP, near-zero fluid management was associated
or chronic pancreatitis like ampullary carcinoma, distal with a higher rate of POP (24.6 vs. 0%, P < 0.01) and
cholangiocarcinoma, duodenal adenocarcinoma, in these POPF (27.6 vs. 11.4%, P 1⁄4 0.05) than liberal fluid
pathologies the acinar cell density is high. In our cohort management.5 In an RCT where ulinastatin( a trypsin
of patient the common pathology is ampullary carcinoma inhibitor) and placebo were compared, ulinastatin
. Nahm et. al studied the acinar cell density of the decreased the incidence of POP and decreased the drain
pancreatic stump and found that the increase in acinar amylase level on POD 2-3 significantly but the study was
cell density in the pancreatic stump was significantly not powered enough to detect the change in the POPF
associated with POP.15 In another retrospective study, rates.25
it was shown that smaller MPD, normal bilirubin, high-
Recently, ISGPS has tried to define Post-pancreatectomy
risk pathology, female sex, and robotic surgery was
acute pancreatitis(PPAP) as an acute inflammatory
associated with developing POP.16
condition of the pancreatic remnant beginning within
The most common histopathology in our study was the first three postoperative days following a partial
ampullary carcinoma which is different to the literature pancreatic resection. The diagnosis requires (1) a
published from the West, where the most common sustained postoperative serum hyperamylasemia (POH)
greater than the institutional upper limit of normal for
at least the first 48 hours postoperatively; (2) associated 5. Bannone E, Andrianello S, Marchegiani G, Masini G,
with clinically relevant features; and (3) radiologic Malleo G, Bassi C et al. Postoperative Acute Pancreatitis
alterations consistent with PPAP. Three different PPAP Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Determinant
grades were defined based on the clinical impact: (1) of Fistula Potentially Driven by the Intraoperative Fluid
grade POH, biochemical changes only; (2) grade B, mild Management. Ann Surg. 2018;268(5):815-822.[Article]
or moderate complications; and (3) grade C, severe life-
6. Chen H, Wang W, Ying X, Deng X, Peng C, Cheng D et
threatening complications.26
al. Predictive factors for postoperative pancreatitis after
pancreaticoduodenectomy: A single-center retrospective
There are a few drawbacks of our study, first is the
analysis of 1465 patients. Pancreatology. 2020;20(2):211-
observational bias: in our study, the complications rates
216.[Article]
were higher than our previous studies,21,27 which might
have increased the predictability of POP. The second, 7. Birgin E, Reeg A, Téoule P, Rahbari NN, Post S,
is lacking of use of other additional parameters, as Reissfelder C et al. Early postoperative pancreatitis
previously mentioned, we could have added CECT following pancreaticoduodenectomy: what is clinically
abdomen to look for features of acute pancreatitis relevant postoperative pancreatitis?. HPB (Oxford).
in the patients who had postoperative CT for any 2019;21(8):972-980.[Article]
complications. Third is that we could have taken a
8. He J, Ahuja N, Makary MA, Cameron JL, Eckhauser
biopsy from the pancreas in the reexplored patients,
FE, Choti MA et al. 2564 resected periampullary
which could have given a histopathological evidence of
adenocarcinomas at a single institution: trends over three
pancreatitis. Nevertheless, this study has increased our
decades. HPB (Oxford). 2014;16(1):83-90.[Article]
interest in this new entity. The Recent definition given
by ISGPS will help in better characterization in future 9. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal
studies.26 M, Adham M, et al. The 2016 update of the International
Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of
CONCLUSIONS postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After. Surgery.
2017;161(3):584-591.[Article]
Post-operative Pancreatitis was associated with an
10. Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A,
increased incidence of Post-operative pancreatic
Gouma DJ, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH):
fistula and other postoperative complications like Post
an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery
pancreatectomy hemorrhage and mortality.
(ISGPS) definition. Surgery. 2007;142(1):20-25.[Article]
CONFLICT OF INTEREST 11. Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma
The authors declare no conflict of interest DJ, Izbicki JR, et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE)
after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by
the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery
REFERENCES
(ISGPS). Surgery. 2007;142(5):761-768.[Article]
1. Cameron JL, He J. Two thousand consecutive 12. Besselink MG, van Rijssen LB, Bassi C, Dervenis C,
pancreaticoduodenectomies. J Am Coll Surg. Montorsi M, Adham M, et al. Definition and classification
2015;220(4):530-536.[Article] of chyle leak after pancreatic operation: A consensus
2. Bergquist JR, Shubert CR, Ubl DS, Thiels CA, statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic
Kendrick ML, Truty MJ et al. Risk by indication for Surgery. Surgery. 2017;161(2):365-372.[Article]
pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients 80 years and older: 13. Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R, Rahbari NN, Adam R,
a study from the American College of Surgeons National Capussotti L, et al. Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and
Surgical Quality Improvement Program. HPB (Oxford). pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by
2016;18(11):900-907. [Article] the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery.
3. Nahm CB, Connor SJ, Samra JS, Mittal A. Postoperative 2011;149(5):680-688.[Article]
pancreatic fistula: a review of traditional and emerging 14. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of
concepts. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2018;11:105-118.[Article] surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in
4. Connor S. Defining post-operative pancreatitis as a new a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg.
pancreatic specific complication following pancreatic 2004;240(2):205-213.[Article]
resection. HPB (Oxford). 2016;18(8):642-651. [Article] 15. Nahm CB, Brown KM, Townend PJ, Colvin E, Howell VM,
Gill AJ, et al. Acinar cell density at the pancreatic resection
margin is associated with post-pancreatectomy pancreatitis the incidence of delayed gastric emptying following
and the development of postoperative pancreatic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis. BMC
fistula. HPB (Oxford). 2018;20(5):432-440.[Article] Gastroenterology. 2018 Nov 26;18(1):176.[Article]
16. Ikenaga N, Ohtsuka T, Nakata K, Watanabe Y, Mori Y, 22. Robinson JR, Marincola P, Shelton J, Merchant NB, Idrees
Nakamura M. Clinical significance of postoperative acute K, Parikh AA. Peri-operative risk factors for delayed
pancreatitis after pancreatoduodenectomy and distal gastric emptying after a pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB
pancreatectomy. Surgery. 2021;169(4):732-737. [Article] (Oxford). 2015 Jun;17(6):495–501.[Article]
17. Partelli S, Tamburrino D, Andreasi V, Mazzocato S, Crippa 23. Loos M, Strobel O, Dietrich M, Mehrabi A, Ramouz
S, Perretti E, et al. Implications of increased serum amylase A, Al-Saeedi M, et al. Hyperamylasemia and acute
after pancreaticoduodenectomy: toward a better definition pancreatitis after pancreatoduodenectomy: Two different
of clinically relevant postoperative acute pancreatitis. HPB entities. Surgery. 2021;169(2):369-376.[Article]
(Oxford). 2020;22(11):1645-1653. [Article]
24. Bann Bannone E, Andrianello S, Marchegiani G, Malleo G,
18. Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, Chaikof EL, Vollmer CM Paiella S, Salvia R, et al. Postoperative hyperamylasemia
Jr. A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately (POH) and acute pancreatitis after pancreatoduodenectomy
predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J (POAP): State of the art and systematic review. Surgery.
Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(1):1-14.[Article] 2021;169(2):377-387.[Article]
19. Subedi, N., B. Kandel, B. Ghimire, P. B. Kansakar, 25. Uemura K, Murakami Y, Hayashidani Y, Sudo T, Hashimoto
R. S. Bhandari, and P. Joshi Lakhey. Management Y, Ohge H, et al. Randomized clinical trial to assess the
of Postpancreatectomy Hemorrhage Following efficacy of ulinastatin for postoperative pancreatitis
Pancreaticoduodenectomy at a Tertiary Care Center in following pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Surg Oncol.
Nepal”. Journal of Institute of Medicine Nepal, vol. 42, 2008;98(5):309-313.[Article]
no. 3, Dec. 2020, pp. 26-31.[Article]
26. Marchegiani G, Barreto SG, Bannone E, Sarr M, Vollmer
20. Shah S, Ghimire B, Paudel S, Singh YP. Pancreatic CM, Connor S, et al. Postpancreatectomy Acute Pancreatitis
Configuration Index in Predicting Postoperative Pancreatic (PPAP): Definition and Grading From the International
Fistula in a Tertiary Care Center in Nepal. J Nepal Health Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Ann Surg.
Res Counc. 2020;18(2):172-177. Published 2020 Sep 7. 2022;275(4):663-672.[Article]
[Article]
27. Lakhey PJ, Bhandari RS, Ghimire B, Khakurel M.
21. Zhou Y, Hu B, Wei K, Si X. Braun anastomosis lowers Perioperative outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy:
Nepalese experience. World J Surg. 2010;34(8):1916-
1921.[Article]