Original Communication| Volume 147, ISSUE 4, P503-515, April 2010

Incidence of pancreatic anastomotic failure and delayed gastric emptying after pancreatoduodenectomy in 507 consecutive patients: Use of a web-based calculator to improve homogeneity of definition

Published:December 17, 2009DOI:


      Many definitions are used in the literature for pancreatic anastomotic failure (PAF) and delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). To promote homogeneity, published reports after 2005 have used the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) consensus definition for PAF and DGE; however, subsequent authors have had to interpret or modify the ISGPS classification to make it useable. The solution might be to create a web-based calculator, test it for ambiguity and reliability with a large number of cases, and then make it available to the public.


      Using 507 consecutive patients undergoing PD and 14 questions, we created a web-based calculator based on the ISPGS classification to assess the incidence and grade of clinical impact (none, moderate, or major deviation) for PAF and DGE. As the calculator's formulas were tested, ambiguous terms were identified and resolved.


      The incidence for cases with clinical impact from PAF was 10% and from DGE it was 12%. Multivariate analysis identified 4 factors predictive for PAF: male sex, body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2, soft gland texture, and main pancreatic duct size ≤3 mm. Predictive factors for DGE included 2 factors: not using a surgical microscope, and simultaneous PAF.


      A web-based calculator was developed to promote homogeneity of method for grading of PAF and DGE after PD. Anyone with access to the web can now compare their results to the current study.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Lowy A.M.
        • Lee J.E.
        • Pisters P.W.
        • Davidson B.S.
        • Fenoglio C.J.
        • Stanford P.
        • et al.
        Prospective, randomized trial of octreotide to prevent pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignant disease.
        Ann Surg. 1997; 226: 632-641
        • Tsiotos G.G.
        • Farnell M.B.
        • Sarr M.G.
        Are the results of pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer improving?.
        World J Surg. 1999; 23: 913-919
        • Conlon K.C.
        • Labow D.
        • Leung D.
        • Smith A.
        • Jarnagin W.
        • Coit D.G.
        • et al.
        Prospective randomized clinical trial of the value of intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatic resection.
        Ann Surg. 2001; 234: 487-493
        • Poon R.T.
        • Lo S.H.
        • Fong D.
        • Fan S.T.
        • Wong J.
        Prevention of pancreatic anastomotic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
        Am J Surg. 2002; 183: 42-52
        • Fuks D.
        • Piessen G.
        • Huet E.
        • Tavernier M.
        • Zerbib P.
        • Michot F.
        • et al.
        Life-threatening postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade C) after pancreaticoduodenectomy: incidence, prognosis, and risk factors.
        Am J Surg. 2009; 197: 702-709
        • Cameron J.L.
        • Pitt H.A.
        • Yeo C.J.
        • Lillemoe K.D.
        • Kaufman H.S.
        • Coleman J.
        One hundred and forty-five consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies without mortality.
        Ann Surg. 1993; 217: 430-435
        • Trede M.
        • Schwall G.
        • Saeger H.D.
        Survival after pancreatoduodenectomy. 118 consecutive resections without an operative mortality.
        Ann Surg. 1990; 211: 447-458
        • Fernández-del Castillo C.
        • Rattner D.W.
        • Warshaw A.L.
        Standards for pancreatic resection in the 1990s.
        Arch Surg. 1995; 130: 295-299
        • Traverso L.W.
        • Kozarek R.A.
        Pancreatoduodenectomy for chronic pancreatitis: anatomic selection criteria and subsequent long-term outcome analysis.
        Ann Surg. 1997; 226: 429-435
        • Yeo C.J.
        • Cameron J.L.
        • Maher M.M.
        • Sauter P.K.
        • Zahurak M.L.
        • Talamini M.A.
        • et al.
        A prospective randomized trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
        Ann Surg. 1995; 222: 580-588
        • Winter J.M.
        • Cameron J.L.
        • Campbell K.A.
        • Arnold M.A.
        • Chang D.C.
        • Coleman J.
        • et al.
        1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: A single-institution experience.
        J Gastrointest Surg. 2006; 10: 1199-1210
        • Veillette G.
        • Dominguez I.
        • Ferrone C.
        • Thayer S.P.
        • McGrath D.
        • Warshaw A.L.
        • et al.
        Implications and management of pancreatic fistulas following pancreaticoduodenectomy: the Massachusetts General Hospital experience.
        Arch Surg. 2008; 143: 476-481
        • Murakami Y.
        • Uemura K.
        • Hayashidani Y.
        • Sudo T.
        • Hashimoto Y.
        • Nakagawa N.
        • et al.
        No mortality after 150 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies with duct-to-mucosa pancreaticogastrostomy.
        J Surg Oncol. 2008; 97: 205-209
        • Traverso L.W.
        • Shinchi H.
        • Low D.E.
        Useful benchmarks to evaluate outcomes after esophagectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.
        Am J Surg. 2004; 187: 604-608
        • Pratt W.B.
        • Maithel S.K.
        • Vanounou T.
        • Huang Z.S.
        • Callery M.P.
        • Vollmer Jr., C.M.
        Clinical and economic validation of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) classification scheme.
        Ann Surg. 2007; 245: 443-451
        • Bassi C.
        • Dervenis C.
        • Butturini G.
        • Fingerhut A.
        • Yeo C.
        • Izbicki J.
        • et al.
        Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition.
        Surgery. 2005; 138: 8-13
        • Pratt W.B.
        • Callery M.P.
        • Vollmer Jr., C.M.
        Risk prediction for development of pancreatic fistula using the ISGPF classification scheme.
        World J Surg. 2008; 32: 419-428
        • Pedrazzoli S.
        • Liessi G.
        • Pasquali C.
        • Ragazzi R.
        • Berselli M.
        • Sperti C.
        Postoperative pancreatic fistulas: preventing severe complications and reducing reoperation and mortality rate.
        Ann Surg. 2009; 249: 97-104
        • Traverso L.W.
        • Hashimoto Y.
        Delayed gastric emptying: the state of the highest level of evidence.
        J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2008; 15: 262-269
        • Wente M.N.
        • Bassi C.
        • Dervenis C.
        • Fingerhut A.
        • Gouma D.J.
        • Izbicki J.R.
        • 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
        • American Diabetes Association
        Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus.
        Diabetes Care. 2007; 30: S42-S47
        • Pratt W.
        • Maithel S.K.
        • Vanounou T.
        • Callery M.P.
        • Vollmer Jr., C.M.
        Postoperative pancreatic fistulas are not equivalent after proximal, distal, and central pancreatectomy.
        J Gastrointest Surg. 2006; 10: 1264-1278
      1. Calculator for Leak and DGE using the ISGPS Definition [The Pancreas Club web site]. Available at: Accessed May 10, 2009.

        • Sarr M.G.
        The potent somatostatin analogue vapreotide does not decrease pancreas-specific complications after elective pancreatectomy: a prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.
        J Am Coll Surg. 2003; 196: 556-564
        • Lin J.W.
        • Cameron J.L.
        • Yeo C.J.
        • Riall T.S.
        • Lillemoe K.D.
        Risk factors and outcomes in postpancreaticoduodenectomy pancreaticocutaneous fistula.
        J Gastrointest Surg. 2004; 8: 951-959
        • Marcus S.G.
        • Cohen H.
        • Ranson J.H.
        Optimal management of the pancreatic remnant after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
        Ann Surg. 1995; 221: 635-645
        • van Berge Henegouwen M.I.
        • De Wit L.T.
        • Van Gulik T.M.
        • Obertop H.
        • Gouma D.J.
        Incidence, risk factors, and treatment of pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy: drainage versus resection of the pancreatic remnant.
        J Am Coll Surg. 1997; 185: 18-24
        • Yang Y.M.
        • Tian X.D.
        • Zhuang Y.
        • Wang W.M.
        • Wan Y.L.
        • Huang Y.T.
        Risk factors of pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
        World J Gastroenterol. 2005; 11: 2456-2461
        • Wada K.
        • Traverso L.W.
        Pancreatic anastomotic leak after the Whipple procedure is reduced using the surgical microscope.
        Surgery. 2006; 139: 735-742