Surgical management of the postoperative complications of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery

Eduardo Javier Houghton; Juan Santiago Rubio

doi:10.18528/ijgii220041

pISSN 2636-0004 eISSN 2636-0012

Article

Review Article

Int J Gastrointest Interv 2022; 11(4): 150-155

Published online October 31, 2022 https://doi.org/10.18528/ijgii220041

Surgical management of the postoperative complications of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery

Eduardo Javier Houghton^1,2,3,* and Juan Santiago Rubio⁴

¹Teaching and Research Department, DAICIM Foundation, Buenos Aires, Argentina
²Surgery Division, B. Rivadavia Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina
³Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
⁴Solid Organ Transplant Service, Hospital de Alta Complejidad en Red El Cruce Dr. Néstor Carlos Kirchner, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Correspondence to:^*Surgery Division, B. Rivadavia Hospital, Las heras 2670, CABA 1425, Argentina.
E-mail address: ehoughton26@icloud.com (E.J. Houghton).

Received: July 26, 2022; Revised: October 14, 2022; Accepted: October 14, 2022

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/4.0) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Go to

Abstract
Introduction
Literature Review Methodology
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References

Gastrointestinal surgery is a vast field with many types of procedures, of which hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) operations are among the most frequently performed worldwide. Several complications of HPB surgery may occur. Most of these complications, such as wound infection, bleeding, abdominal wall eventrations, and intestinal obstruction, also occur with other procedures. This review analyzes surgical management-related complications associated with HPB surgery, including pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, biliary stenosis, and bile duct damage. Most of the complications of HPB surgery can be managed conservatively or with minimally invasive procedures. Nevertheless, surgical management still plays an important role.

Keywords: Bile ducts, Liver, Pancreas, Postoperative complications, Surgical procedures, operative

Introduction

Go to

Abstract
Introduction
Literature Review Methodology
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References

Gastrointestinal (GI) surgery is a vast field with many different procedures, among which hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) operations are among the most frequently performed worldwide. HPB surgery also includes relatively simple procedures, such as cholecystectomy, hepatectomy, and pancreatoduodenectomy. These procedures are usually performed by professional HPB surgeons because experienced surgeons have much lower complication rates and higher success rates.^1,2 Therefore, the surgeon’s experience and the size of the hospital affect the incidence of complications and the likelihood of favorable oncological outcomes, as demonstrated by Papageorge et al.³ Therefore, the appropriate choice of a surgeon and hospital is the first step in treatment of HPB surgical complications, as prevention is better than cure. For this reason, these types of procedures should only be performed at high-capacity centers by HPB-trained surgeons who perform all complex HPB procedures.

Pancreatic surgery is particularly challenging. Several procedures have been described, such as tumor enucleation, total pancreatectomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy with or without spleen preservation, the Puestow procedure, and the Partington-Rochelle procedure. Pancreaticoduodenectomy is perhaps the most frequently performed pancreatic surgery, with relatively high morbidity and mortality rates that reflect the difficulty of this procedure for both patients and surgeons. Advances in perioperative management have reduced the mortality rate to less than 5%, but the morbidity rate remains high (30%–65%).⁴^–10 Several complications, such as wound infection, intestinal obstruction, and abdominal wall hernia, also occur with other operations. However, complications of this type are not analyzed in this manuscript because they go beyond the scope of this review. Instead, this review focuses on the specific complications of HPB surgery. Pancreatic fistulas, which are potentially among the most serious complications, occur in 5% to 20% of cases depending on the series and may be associated with life-threatening complications such as intra-abdominal abscesses, bleeding, or sepsis.¹¹^–16 Another frequent complication is delayed gastric emptying (DGE), with an incidence of 7% to 37%. DGE is not deadly, but it prolongs the hospital stay and increases costs.^11,17^–20

Liver surgery typically ranges from small metastatic resection, with relatively few complications, to trisectionectomies or liver transplantation, with higher complexity and higher rates of complications. The history of liver surgery started with a left lateral hepatic lobectomy performed by Langenbuch in Germany in 1887.²¹ Since then, extensive experiences have been gathered, but liver surgery still has high rates of postoperative morbidity (4.09%–47.7%) and mortality (0.24%–9.7%).²¹^–36 Frequent post-liver surgery complications include some that are in common with other procedures (e.g., fever, hemorrhage, pleural effusion, and subphrenic infection). The focus herein is specific liver surgery-related complications such as hemorrhage and bile leakage, the incidence of which ranges from 4% to 17%.^21,37^–40

The most common procedure performed worldwide in connection with biliary tract surgery is laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), followed by hepaticojejunostomy (HJ), which is commonly used as a reconstructive step for other liver, pancreatic, or biliary tract procedures. LC is the standard treatment for gallbladder stones. Although the rate of complications is low, one of them (bile duct injury [BDI]), is among the complications most feared by surgeons. Its incidence increased from 0.125% to 0.3% for open cholecystectomy to 0.4% to 0.6% for LC.⁴¹^–49 This increase in the incidence of BDIs associated with LC was also accompanied by an increase in their complexity.⁴⁸

The most common complications associated with HJ are bile leakage and narrowing. These HJ-related complications will not be analyzed herein because they are often managed by an interventional radiologist.

The purpose of this review is to describe the current evidence and surgical management of certain complications of the most frequent HPB surgical procedures.

Literature Review Methodology

Go to

Abstract
Introduction
Literature Review Methodology
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References

A comprehensive computer-aided literature search on HPB surgery was performed from no initial date to July 2022 using MEDLINE and Embase. The following Medical Subject Heading terms were used in the searches: pancreatic surgery, pancreatoduodenectomy, total pancreatectomy, biliary tract surgical procedures, hepaticojejunostomy stricture, BDI, revision, choledocho-choledochostomy, choledocho-enterostomy, choledocho-duodenostomy, bilio-biliary anastomosis, biliary-enteric anastomosis, hemorrhage, liver surgery, bile leakage, hepatectomy, and complications. All human case reports or studies fully published in English were included; abstracts only were excluded.

Liver surgery complications

Liver resection is widely performed for the treatment of various liver diseases, such as malignant tumors, benign tumors, calculi in the intrahepatic ducts, hydatid disease, and abscesses.²¹ Hepatectomy has relatively high rates of postoperative morbidity (4%–47%).^25,31,35,36 Common post-hepatectomy complications include fever, hemorrhage, bile leakage, liver failure, pleural effusion, and subphrenic infection.²¹ In this section, we focus on hemorrhage and bile leakage.

Postoperative hemorrhage

Intraperitoneal hemorrhage: Early bleeding occurring within 24 hours of surgery is usually due to intraoperative failure to secure appropriate hemostasis, and prompt reoperation usually fixes the problem. Unchanged postoperative courses can be expected in these patients. Managing hemorrhage based on the patient’s hemodynamic status is recommended. Immediate surgery is needed when the patient’s systolic blood pressure is < 90 mmHg and there is clinical evidence of hemorrhagic shock. Postoperative hemorrhage is one of the most dreaded complications of major supramesocolic surgical procedures, such as resection of the liver.⁵⁰ Massive blood loss leads to hemorrhagic shock and death if prompt hemostasis is not undertaken.⁵¹ The incidence of intraperitoneal hemorrhage ranges from 4.2% to 10%.^26,27,52^–54 There are three common reasons for intraperitoneal hemorrhage: (1) bleeding from the residual liver surfaces, which may be a consequence of arterial branch truncation or congestion of the hepatic vein due to stenosis or ligation; (2) incomplete intraoperative hemostasis, which sometimes is due to inappropriate manipulation of the hepatic vein root or trauma to the diaphragm, and increased intrathoracic pressure and vena cava pressure, which may lead to bleeding; and (3) vascular sutures that have loosened or fallen off, an event which usually is ascribed to elevated pressure in the vena cava from patients’ body movements, such as turning over or coughing severely.²¹ The presence of persistent bloody drainage might indicate that intraperitoneal clots have formed, which may occlude abdominal drains, leading to abdominal distention. The close monitoring of vital signs and transfusion of whole blood, platelets, and plasma are usually recommended if the patient’s blood pressure and pulse remain stable. Otherwise, secondary open surgery should be considered.⁵⁵ Jin et al²¹ recommended performing open surgery to achieve hemostasis if blood loss exceeds 1,000 mL/h for more than 8 hours.

Biliary tract hemorrhage: Iatrogenic BDI is the most common cause of biliary tract hemorrhage after hepatectomy. Surgical maneuvers, including operating in the hepatic portal region, bile duct exploratory surgery, and the placement of T-tubes in the biliary ducts could result in biliary tract hemorrhage. Other common causes are mucosal erosion ulcers and coagulation disorders due to biliary tract infection and inflammation. The major manifestations of biliary tract hemorrhage are right upper quadrant gripping pain, upper GI bleeding, and obstructive jaundice. Usually, bleeding of this kind can be treated effectively with appropriate hemostasis, antibiotics, and supportive measures. For patients who have massive biliary tract bleeding or whose bleeding site is unclear (after hepatic artery angiography), an exploratory operation should be carried out.⁵⁶^–60

Operative management: Most cases involve mild or moderate hemorrhage, and the site of bleeding is not found at the moment of reoperation. On laparotomy, if no major bleeding is present, compression alone or electrocautery, bipolar devices, argon beam coagulation, topical hemostatic agents, or simple suturing of the hepatic parenchyma may be sufficient to stop the bleeding. In those cases, peritoneal lavage and drainage are recommended.

Hemodynamically unstable and non-responsive patients should undergo operative management.⁶¹ In case of major hemorrhage, more aggressive procedures, including manual compression and hepatic packing, ligation of vessels in the transection surface, balloon tamponade, shunting procedures, or hepatic vascular isolation and exclusion, may be used.^62,63 If there is evident injury on some branches of the remnant hepatic artery, selective ligation is advisable.⁶⁴ If the bleeding comes from behind the liver, retro-hepatic caval or hepatic vein injury should be strongly suspected.^65,66 Laparoscopy should be considered as the initial approach to minimize the invasiveness of surgical intervention and to tailor the procedure to the lesion.⁶¹

Bile leakage

The incidence of bile leakage ranges from 4.0% to 17%.²¹ According to the International Study Group of Liver Surgery, bile leakage after hepatectomy is defined as drainage of fluid with a bilirubin level three times greater than the serum level on postoperative day 3 or the need for an intervention owing to bilious collection or biliary peritonitis.⁶⁷ Postoperative bile leakage is associated with an increased risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure and mortality.^40,68 Common causes of postoperative bile leakage are: (1) truncation of the distal bile duct in the residual liver (the most common cause); (2) leakage at the bile duct-intestinal anastomosis or an incomplete suture around the T-tube; and (3) injury to the bile duct from an inappropriate surgical technique.²¹

Intractable bile leakage is defined as bile leakage that does not improve after a drainage procedure. Bile leakage was classified by Nagano et al⁶⁹ into four types: type A, minor leakage from a cut surface; type B, leakage caused by insufficient closure of the bile duct stump; type C, leakage from the injured bile duct wall at the exposed bile duct or hilar bile duct; and type D, leakage from the distal orifice of the isolated bile duct. Type D bile leakage is intractable and cannot be treated by simple drainage alone. Patients with type D bile leakage must undergo surgical procedures, such as liver resection or biliodigestive anastomosis.⁷⁰

Several studies have described risk factors for bile leakage. Yoshioka et al⁷¹ reported three independent risk factors: (1) multiple hepatectomy, (2) traumatized liver surface ≥ 57.5 cm²; and (3) intraoperative bleeding ≥ 775 mL. In addition, Sadamori et al⁷² found that an operative time ≥ 300 minutes was an independent risk factor for bile leakage after hepatectomy.

After surgery, close postoperative monitoring is mandatory. Bile leakage may be evident from the presence of bile in the peritoneal drainage (the concentration of bilirubin in the bile will be higher than in serum). A drainage tube can remain if there is no sign of peritonitis; the bile leakage may resolve spontaneously within 2 months. However, if peritonitis develops, open surgery should be performed as soon as possible for thorough cleaning of the abdominal cavity and repair of the damaged bile duct. In general, nonoperative treatment is sufficient if the results of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and computed tomography are negative for bile leakage, but an operative intervention may be needed if conservative therapy fails.²¹

Biliary surgery complications

Bile leakage from HJ

Biliary leaks from HJ are usually a major complication. They occur in 0.4% to 8% of patients, depending on the type of procedure.⁷³ Liver resection, biliary complications after liver transplantation requiring HJ, preoperative radiochemotherapy, and preoperative cholinesterase level were significantly associated with postoperative bile leaks according to Antolovic et al.⁷⁴

Low-volume leaks can be managed conservatively by just waiting until the leak is depleted by itself. However, high-volume leaks could lead to several complications, such as biloma, choleperitoneum, and peritonitis.⁷³^–75 Bilomas are often treated by percutaneous placement of a catheter; while choleperitoneum requires relaparotomy or relaparoscopy to conduct lavage and restore the dehiscence of the anastomosis if the local conditions permit. If not, a catheter should be placed in the biliary duct and the reconstruction should be deferred for a subsequent procedure. The algorithm for bile leak management is shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. Algorithm for hepaticojejunostomy bile leaks. *First assess the fistula by injected contrast through the drainage, and the biliary tree with 3D biliary reconstruction on magnetic resonance imaging.

Bile duct injuries

There are several types of bile duct damage. Cho et al⁷⁶ established a standardized reporting system, known as the Strasberg classification, in 2018. Different grades require different types of treatment. Several mini-invasive procedures have been developed in recent years, making it possible to solve most of these injuries. Initially, percutaneous and endoscopic procedures were performed to temporize by treating fluid collection and cholangitis, and HJ was performed second. Recently, however, these procedures have become the definitive treatment for more complex BDI.

Percutaneous HJ, percutaneous endoscopic rendezvous with magnets for recanalization of biliary stenosis, and radiofrequency ablation in canalicular stenosis are a few examples.⁷⁷^–80 The current algorithm for the management of BDI is shown in Fig. 2.

Figure 2. Algorithm for bile duct injuries. PO, postoperative.

For biliary stenosis, the preferred treatment is balloon dilatation, with a clinical success rate of approximately 65%.⁸¹ In case of failure, the next step is continuous dilatation by endoscopy or percutaneously; Costamagna et al⁸² described performing this procedure endoscopically, with a clinical success rate of 80%.⁸³ Continuous expansion applied by biodegradable bile stents or full-covered metal stents can achieve similar results.^84,85 If all these mini-invasive treatments fail, the last option is to perform repeated HJ. This is a complex operation that must be performed at high-volume centers by experienced HPB surgeons in order to achieve acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality.⁸⁶

For more complex BDIs without possible minimally invasive treatment, HJ is the preferred option. The clinical success rate of HJ is between 85% and 95%.^87,88 In worse cases, liver resection or transplantation may be possible.⁸⁹

There is some disagreement in the literature about the optimal time window for performing surgical HJ. Ismael et al⁸⁹ compared early surgical restorations within 30 days to late restorations. They found a higher mortality rate in the early group, and Booij et al⁹⁰ demonstrated a higher rate of HJ stenosis in early repair. Conversely, a recent E-AHPBA multicenter study did not show that the timing of biliary reconstruction had an impact on serious postoperative complications, the need for reintervention, or liver-related death. They concluded that individualized treatment after BDI is still advisable.⁹¹

Pancreatic surgery complications

The management of complications after pancreatic resection has shifted from an operative to a conservative approach, thanks to the establishment of multidisciplinary teams with high degrees of expertise. The International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) established standardized definitions and clinical grading systems for the most common complications, including pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and DGE.⁹²

Postoperative pancreatic fistula

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most common complication after pancreatic resection and it contributes significantly to mortality after pancreatic resections.⁹³ Numerous articles showed that fistula risk encompasses endogenous, perioperative, and intraoperative factors, including age, sex, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular comorbidities, disease pathology, neoadjuvant therapy, use of prophylactic somatostatin analogs, pancreatic duct caliber, pancreatic remnant texture, anastomotic technique, the use of a transanastomotic stent, intraoperative blood loss, operative time, and routine drain placement.⁹⁴

POPF management is usually nonsurgical, but some cases require revision surgery and are classified as International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula grade C. The indications for relaparotomy are not uniform across different series and depend on the expertise and patients’ conditions. In general, an operative intervention must be considered in cases of clinical deterioration despite maximal supporting care, infected intra-abdominal collections inaccessible to percutaneous or endoscopic drainage, suspected peritonitis due to visceral perforation, and drainage limb necrosis.⁹²

Pancreatic stump management in relaparotomy encompasses multiple surgical options, including debridement and wide drainage of the peripancreatic region, attempted repair of the site of leakage, construction of a new pancreatic-enteric anastomosis, resection of the pancreatic-enteric anastomosis with remnant closure, and completion pancreatectomy. The choice is often dictated by the intraoperative findings and the patient’s clinical status. Regardless of the surgical approach, it has been shown that subsequent operations were required in approximately 50% of patients with re-operations. The majority of these were necessary in patients with septic complications requiring open abdominal lavage with secondary abdominal wall closure.⁹⁵

Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage

Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage is one of the most feared complications after pancreatectomy due to its association with high mortality; the reported rates of this complication are between 3% and 10% in most series.⁹² In accordance with the ISGPS definition, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage is graded based on onset, location, and severity. Whereas early postpancreatectomy hemorrhage is often due to inadequate hemostasis or an underlying coagulopathy, late postpancreatectomy hemorrhage is often the result of a multifactorial pathophysiological mechanism, including an association with other pancreatectomy specific complications, such as POPF.⁹⁶ Severe postpancreatectomy hemorrhage requires fast and effective management. The management of early postpancreatectomy hemorrhage is mostly through relaparotomy.⁹⁷ POPF is associated with late postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, as the leakage of enzyme-rich fluid into the abdomen might cause vessel erosion, which can result in the formation of a pseudoaneurysm. Pseudoaneurysms are known to rupture and consequently can cause late hemorrhage.⁵¹ Identifying the source of the hemorrhage during relaparotomy can be challenging, especially in a patient with severe POPF. According to the current literature, hemorrhage after pancreatectomy is relatively rare, with an incidence of 5%, but a mortality rate of 21%, making it the most lethal pancreatectomy-specific complication, and it is important to pay attention to its appearance to ensure a rapid resolution.⁹⁶

Delayed gastric emptying

DGE is a potentially serious event that may lead to patient discomfort, further interventions, prolonged hospitalization, higher readmission rates, and increased hospital costs. The diagnosis of DGE remains nebulous, with no test that clearly defines the physiologic function of the GI tract. The reported DGE incidence ranges from 13.8% to more than 40%.⁹² In addition, DGE needs nonoperative management.

In conclusion, most HPB surgery complications can be managed conservatively or by minimally invasive procedures. Nevertheless, surgical management still plays a key role, and knowing how and when to decide to shift from a conservative or minimally invasive approach to a surgical approach is as important as the surgical approach itself.

Funding

Go to

Abstract
Introduction
Literature Review Methodology
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References

None.

Conflicts of Interest

Go to

Abstract
Introduction
Literature Review Methodology
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

Go to

Abstract
Introduction
Literature Review Methodology
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References

Torphy RJ, Friedman C, Halpern A, Chapman BC, Ahrendt SS, McCarter MM, et al. Comparing short-term and oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy across low and high volume centers. Ann Surg. 2019;270:1147-55.
Kovoor JG, Ma N, Tivey DR, Vandepeer M, Jacobsen JHW, Scarfe A, et al. In-hospital survival after pancreatoduodenectomy is greater in high-volume hospitals versus lower-volume hospitals: a meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg. 2022;92:77-85.
Papageorge MV, de Geus SWL, Woods AP, Ng SC, McAneny D, Tseng JF, et al. The effect of hospital versus surgeon volume on short-term patient outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a SEER-medicare analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29:2444-51.
Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Sohn TA, Lillemoe KD, Pitt HA, Talamini MA, et al. Six hundred fifty consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies in the 1990s: pathology, complications, and outcomes. Ann Surg. 1997;226:248-57; discussion 257-60.
Büchler MW, Wagner M, Schmied BM, Uhl W, Friess H, Z'graggen K. Changes in morbidity after pancreatic resection: toward the end of completion pancreatectomy. Arch Surg. 2003;138:1310-4; discussion 1315.
Balcom JH 4th, Rattner DW, Warshaw AL, Chang Y, Fernandez-del Castillo C. Ten-year experience with 733 pancreatic resections: changing indications, older patients, and decreasing length of hospitalization. Arch Surg. 2001;136:391-8.
Tani M, Onishi H, Kinoshita H, Kawai M, Ueno M, Hama T, et al. The evaluation of duct-to-mucosal pancreaticojejunostomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Surg. 2005;29:76-9.
Tani M, Kawai M, Terasawa H, Ueno M, Hama T, Hirono S, et al. Complications with reconstruction procedures in pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Surg. 2005;29:881-4.
Kamoda Y, Fujino Y, Matsumoto I, Shinzeki M, Sakai T, Kuroda Y. Usefulness of performing a pancreaticojejunostomy with an internal stent after a pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Today. 2008;38:524-8.
Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD, Sohn TA, Campbell KA, Sauter PK, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without distal gastrectomy and extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma, part 2: randomized controlled trial evaluating survival, morbidity, and mortality. Ann Surg. 2002;236:355-66; discussion 366-8.
Kawai M, Yamaue H. Analysis of clinical trials evaluating complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a new era of pancreatic surgery. Surg Today. 2010;40:1011-7.
van Berge Henegouwen MI, De Wit LT, Van Gulik TM, Obertop H, Gouma DJ. 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.
Wada K, Traverso LW. Pancreatic anastomotic leak after the Whipple procedure is reduced using the surgical microscope. Surgery. 2006;139:735-42.
Poon RT, Fan ST, Lo CM, Ng KK, Yuen WK, Yeung C, et al. External drainage of pancreatic duct with a stent to reduce leakage rate of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246:425-33; discussion 433-5.
Adam U, Makowiec F, Riediger H, Schareck WD, Benz S, Hopt UT. Risk factors for complications after pancreatic head resection. Am J Surg. 2004;187:201-8.
Kawai M, Tani M, Terasawa H, Ina S, Hirono S, Nishioka R, et al. Early removal of prophylactic drains reduces the risk of intra-abdominal infections in patients with pancreatic head resection: prospective study for 104 consecutive patients. Ann Surg. 2006;244:1-7.
Horstmann O, Markus PM, Ghadimi MB, Becker H. Pylorus preservation has no impact on delayed gastric emptying after pancreatic head resection. Pancreas. 2004;28:69-74.
Zerbi A, Balzano G, Patuzzo R, Calori G, Braga M, Di Carlo V. Comparison between pylorus-preserving and Whipple pancreatoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 1995;82:975-9.
Martignoni ME, Friess H, Sell F, Ricken L, Shrikhande S, Kulli C, et al. Enteral nutrition prolongs delayed gastric emptying in patients after Whipple resection. Am J Surg. 2000;180:18-23.
Nguyen TC, Sohn TA, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD, Campbell KA, Coleman J, et al. Standard vs. radical pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma: a prospective, randomized trial evaluating quality of life in pancreaticoduodenectomy survivors. J Gastrointest Surg. 2003;7:1-9; discussion 9-11.
Jin S, Fu Q, Wuyun G, Wuyun T. Management of post-hepatectomy complications. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:7983-91.
Savage AP, Malt RA. Elective and emergency hepatic resection. Determinants of operative mortality and morbidity. Ann Surg. 1991;214:689-95.
Wu M, Zhang Z. [Prevention and treatment of complications after hepatectomy]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2002;40:332-5. Chinese.
Ishikawa M, Yogita S, Miyake H, Fukuda Y, Harada M, Wada D, et al. Clarification of risk factors for hepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology. 2002;49:1625-31.
Dimick JB, Pronovost PJ, Cowan JA Jr, Lipsett PA. Postoperative complication rates after hepatic resection in Maryland hospitals. Arch Surg. 2003;138:41-6.
Benzoni E, Lorenzin D, Baccarani U, Adani GL, Favero A, Cojutti A, et al. Resective surgery for liver tumor: a multivariate analysis of causes and risk factors linked to postoperative complications. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2006;5:526-33.
Benzoni E, Molaro R, Cedolini C, Favero A, Cojutti A, Lorenzin D, et al. Liver resection for HCC: analysis of causes and risk factors linked to postoperative complications. Hepatogastroenterology. 2007;54:186-9.
Mullen JT, Ribero D, Reddy SK, Donadon M, Zorzi D, Gautam S, et al. Hepatic insufficiency and mortality in 1,059 noncirrhotic patients undergoing major hepatectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:854-62; discussion 862-4.
McKay A, You I, Bigam D, Lafreniere R, Sutherland F, Ghali W, et al. Impact of surgeon training on outcomes after resective hepatic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:1348-55.
Feng ZQ, Huang ZQ, Xu LN, Liu R, Zhang AQ, Huang XQ, et al. Liver resection for benign hepatic lesions: a retrospective analysis of 827 consecutive cases. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:7247-51.
Tomuş C, Iancu C, Bălă O, Graur F, Furcea L, Zaharie F, et al. [Liver resection for benign hepatic lesion: mortality, morbidity and risk factors for postoperative complications]. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2009;104:275-80. Romanian.
Cescon M, Vetrone G, Grazi GL, Ramacciato G, Ercolani G, Ravaioli M, et al. Trends in perioperative outcome after hepatic resection: analysis of 1500 consecutive unselected cases over 20 years. Ann Surg. 2009;249:995-1002.
Huang ZQ, Xu LN, Yang T, Zhang WZ, Huang XQ, Cai SW, et al. Hepatic resection: an analysis of the impact of operative and perioperative factors on morbidity and mortality rates in 2008 consecutive hepatectomy cases. Chin Med J (Engl). 2009;122:2268-77.
Mathur AK, Ghaferi AA, Osborne NH, Pawlik TM, Campbell DA, Englesbe MJ, et al. Body mass index and adverse perioperative outcomes following hepatic resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:1285-91.
Sato M, Tateishi R, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Yoshida H, Matsuda S, et al. Mortality and morbidity of hepatectomy, radiofrequency ablation, and embolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: a national survey of 54,145 patients. J Gastroenterol. 2012;47:1125-33.
Dan RG, Creţu OM, Mazilu O, Sima LV, Iliescu D, Blidişel A, et al. Postoperative morbidity and mortality after liver resection. Retrospective study on 133 patients. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2012;107:737-41.
Lee CC, Chau GY, Lui WY, Tsay SH, King KL, Loong CC, et al. Risk factors associated with bile leakage after hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology. 2005;52:1168-71.
Sadamori H, Yagi T, Matsuda H, Shinoura S, Umeda Y, Yoshida R, et al. Risk factors for major morbidity after hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in 293 recent cases. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2010;17:709-18.
Bhattacharjya S, Puleston J, Davidson BR, Dooley JS. Outcome of early endoscopic biliary drainage in the management of bile leaks after hepatic resection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:526-30.
Yamashita Y, Hamatsu T, Rikimaru T, Tanaka S, Shirabe K, Shimada M, et al. Bile leakage after hepatic resection. Ann Surg. 2001;233:45-50.
Wysocki AP. Population-based studies should not be used to justify a policy of routine cholangiography to prevent major bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Surg. 2017;41:82-9.
Roslyn JJ, Binns GS, Hughes EF, Saunders-Kirkwood K, Zinner MJ, Cates JA. Open cholecystectomy. A contemporary analysis of 42,474 patients. Ann Surg. 1993;218:129-37.
Strasberg SM, Hertl M, Soper NJ. An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180:101-25.
Martin D, Uldry E, Demartines N, Halkic N. Bile duct injuries after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 11-year experience in a tertiary center. Biosci Trends. 2016;10:197-201.
Mishra PK, Saluja SS, Nayeem M, Sharma BC, Patil N. Bile duct injury-from injury to repair: an analysis of management and outcome. Indian J Surg. 2015;77(Suppl 2):536-42.
Waage A, Nilsson M. Iatrogenic bile duct injury: a population-based study of 152 776 cholecystectomies in the Swedish Inpatient Registry. Arch Surg. 2006;141:1207-13.
Nuzzo G, Giuliante F, Giovannini I, Ardito F, D'Acapito F, Vellone M, et al. Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of an Italian national survey on 56 591 cholecystectomies. Arch Surg. 2005;140:986-92.
Tantia O, Jain M, Khanna S, Sen B. Iatrogenic biliary injury: 13,305 cholecystectomies experienced by a single surgical team over more than 13 years. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1077-86.
Hogan NM, Dorcaratto D, Hogan AM, Nasirawan F, McEntee P, Maguire D, et al. Iatrogenic common bile duct injuries: increasing complexity in the laparoscopic era: a prospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2016;33:151-6.
Devant E, Girard E, Abba J, Ghelfi J, Sage PY, Sengel C, et al. Delayed postoperative hemorrhage complicating major supramesocolic surgery management and outcomes. World J Surg. 2021;45:2432-8.
Yekebas EF, Wolfram L, Cataldegirmen G, Habermann CR, Bogoevski D, Koenig AM, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage: diagnosis and treatment: an analysis in 1669 consecutive pancreatic resections. Ann Surg. 2007;246:269-80.
Benzoni E, Cojutti A, Lorenzin D, Adani GL, Baccarani U, Favero A, et al. Liver resective surgery: a multivariate analysis of postoperative outcome and complication. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2007;392:45-54.
Nyckowski P, Krawczyk M, Zieniewicz K, Najnigier B, Fraczek M, Kacka A, et al. [Analysis of morbidity risk in patients after liver resection]. Wiad Lek. 1997;50(Suppl 1 Pt 2):277-80. Polish.
Shimada M, Matsumata T, Akazawa K, Kamakura T, Itasaka H, Sugimachi K, et al. Estimation of risk of major complications after hepatic resection. Am J Surg. 1994;167:399-403.
Yang T, Li L, Zhong Q, Lau WY, Zhang H, Huang X, et al. Risk factors of hospital mortality after re-laparotomy for post-hepatectomy hemorrhage. World J Surg. 2013;37:2394-401.
Peng Z, Yan S, Zhou X, Xu Z. Hepatic artery angiography and embolization for hemobilia after hepatobiliary surgery. Chin Med J (Engl). 2001;114:803-6.
Bo JG, Yang XP. [Precise orientation and hepatectomy in the management of biliary tract hemorrhage]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2009;89:1408-10. Chinese.
Miura F, Asano T, Amano H, Yoshida M, Toyota N, Wada K, et al. Management of postoperative arterial hemorrhage after pancreato-biliary surgery according to the site of bleeding: re-laparotomy or interventional radiology. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2009;16:56-63.
Xu ZB, Zhou XY, Peng ZY, Xu SL, Ruan LX. Evaluation of selective hepatic angiography and embolization in patients with massive hemobilia. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2005;4:254-8.
Bloechle C, Izbicki JR, Rashed MY, el-Sefi T, Hosch SB, Knoefel WT, et al. Hemobilia: presentation, diagnosis, and management. Am J Gastroenterol. 1994;89:1537-40.
Coccolini F, Coimbra R, Ordonez C, Kluger Y, Vega F, Moore EE, et al. Liver trauma: WSES 2020 guidelines. World J Emerg Surg. 2020;15:24.
Letoublon C, Amariutei A, Taton N, Lacaze L, Abba J, Risse O, et al. Management of blunt hepatic trauma. J Visc Surg. 2016;153(4 Suppl):33-43.
Kodadek LM, Efron DT, Haut ER. Intrahepatic balloon tamponade for penetrating liver injury: rarely needed but highly effective. World J Surg. 2019;43:486-9.
Peitzman AB, Marsh JW. Advanced operative techniques in the management of complex liver injury. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73:765-70.
Coccolini F, Montori G, Catena F, Di Saverio S, Biffl W, Moore EE, et al. Liver trauma: WSES position paper. World J Emerg Surg. 2015;10:39.
Franklin GA, Casós SR. Current advances in the surgical approach to abdominal trauma. Injury. 2006;37:1143-56.
Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R, Rahbari NN, Adam R, Capussotti L, et al. Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery. 2011;149:680-8.
Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL, Lai EC, Wong J. Biliary complications after hepatic resection: risk factors, management, and outcome. Arch Surg. 1998;133:156-61.
Nagano Y, Togo S, Tanaka K, Masui H, Endo I, Sekido H, et al. Risk factors and management of bile leakage after hepatic resection. World J Surg. 2003;27:695-8.
Kubo N, Shirabe K. Treatment strategy for isolated bile leakage after hepatectomy: literature review. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2019;4:47-55.
Yoshioka R, Saiura A, Koga R, Seki M, Kishi Y, Yamamoto J. Predictive factors for bile leakage after hepatectomy: analysis of 505 consecutive patients. World J Surg. 2011;35:1898-903.
Sadamori H, Yagi T, Matsuda H, Shinoura S, Umeda Y, Fujiwara T. Intractable bile leakage after hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in 359 recent cases. Dig Surg. 2012;29:149-56.
de Castro SM, Kuhlmann KF, Busch OR, van Delden OM, Laméris JS, van Gulik TM, et al. Incidence and management of biliary leakage after hepaticojejunostomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005;9:1163-71; discussion 1171-3.
Antolovic D, Koch M, Galindo L, Wolff S, Music E, Kienle P, et al. Hepaticojejunostomy--analysis of risk factors for postoperative bile leaks and surgical complications. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:555-61.
Hopt UT, Makowiec F, Adam U. [Leakage after biliary and pancreatic surgery]. Chirurg. 2004;75:1079-87. German.
Cho JY, Baron TH, Carr-Locke DL, Chapman WC, Costamagna G, de Santibanes E, et al. Proposed standards for reporting outcomes of treating biliary injuries. HPB (Oxford). 2018;20:370-8.
Schreuder AM, Booij KAC, de Reuver PR, van Delden OM, van Lienden KP, Besselink MG, et al. Percutaneous-endoscopic rendezvous procedure for the management of bile duct injuries after cholecystectomy: short- and long-term outcomes. Endoscopy. 2018;50:577-87.
Wnuk N, Pabon-Martinez AM, Mahvash A, Chintalapani G, Aloia TA, Odisio BC. Percutaneous-transhepatic creation of a bilioenteric neoanastomosis in a patient with bile duct injury using cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Gastrointest Interv. 2019;8:41-4.
Jang SI, Lee KH, Yoon HJ, Lee DK. Treatment of completely obstructed benign biliary strictures with magnetic compression anastomosis: follow-up results after recanalization. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85:1057-66.
Özdemir M, Küçükay F, Özdemir FAE, Acu R, Tola M, Yurdakul M. Percutaneous endobiliary radiofrequency ablation for refractory benign hepaticojejunostomy and biliary strictures. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2018;99:555-60.
Janssen JJ, van Delden OM, van Lienden KP, Rauws EA, Busch OR, van Gulik TM, et al. Percutaneous balloon dilatation and long-term drainage as treatment of anastomotic and nonanastomotic benign biliary strictures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014;37:1559-67.
Costamagna G, Tringali A, Mutignani M, Perri V, Spada C, Pandolfi M, et al. Endotherapy of postoperative biliary strictures with multiple stents: results after more than 10 years of follow-up. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:551-7.
Alvear Castro D, Gómez Rodríguez D, Houghton E, Pasten M, Finger López C, Acquafresca P, et al. Transhepatic percutaneous sustained dilation with multiple catheters for the management of hepaticojejunostomy benign stricture. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2020;30:948-52.
Mauri G, Michelozzi C, Melchiorre F, Poretti D, Pedicini V, Salvetti M, et al. Benign biliary strictures refractory to standard bilioplasty treated using polydoxanone biodegradable biliary stents: retrospective multicentric data analysis on 107 patients. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:4057-63.
Saxena P, Diehl DL, Kumbhari V, Shieh F, Buscaglia JM, Sze W, et al. A US multicenter study of safety and efficacy of fully covered self-expandable metallic stents in benign extrahepatic biliary strictures. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60:3442-8.
AbdelRafee A, El-Shobari M, Askar W, Sultan AM, El Nakeeb A. Long-term follow-up of 120 patients after hepaticojejunostomy for treatment of post-cholecystectomy bile duct injuries: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2015;18:205-10.
Lillemoe KD, Melton GB, Cameron JL, Pitt HA, Campbell KA, Talamini MA, et al. Postoperative bile duct strictures: management and outcome in the 1990s. Ann Surg. 2000;232:430-41.
de Santibañes E, Palavecino M, Ardiles V, Pekolj J. Bile duct injuries: management of late complications. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1648-53.
Ismael HN, Cox S, Cooper A, Narula N, Aloia T. The morbidity and mortality of hepaticojejunostomies for complex bile duct injuries: a multi-institutional analysis of risk factors and outcomes using NSQIP. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19:352-8.
Booij KAC, Coelen RJ, de Reuver PR, Besselink MG, van Delden OM, Rauws EA, et al. Long-term follow-up and risk factors for strictures after hepaticojejunostomy for bile duct injury: an analysis of surgical and percutaneous treatment in a tertiary center. Surgery. 2018;163:1121-7.
A European-African HepatoPancreatoBiliary Association (E-AHPBA) Research Collaborative Study management group; Other members of the European-African HepatoPancreatoBiliary Association Research Collaborative. Post cholecystectomy bile duct injury: early, intermediate or late repair with hepaticojejunostomy - an E-AHPBA multi-center study. HPB (Oxford). 2019;21:1641-7.
Malleo G, Vollmer CM Jr. Postpancreatectomy complications and management. Surg Clin North Am. 2016;96:1313-36.
Vollmer CM Jr, Sanchez N, Gondek S, McAuliffe J, Kent TS, Christein JD, et al. A root-cause analysis of mortality following major pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:89-102; discussion 102-3.
McMillan MT, Vollmer CM Jr. Predictive factors for pancreatic fistula following pancreatectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2014;399:811-24.
Standop J, Glowka T, Schmitz V, Schäfer N, Overhaus M, Hirner A, et al. Operative re-intervention following pancreatic head resection: indications and outcome. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:1503-9.
Floortje van Oosten A, Smits FJ, van den Heuvel DAF, van Santvoort HC, Molenaar IQ. Diagnosis and management of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford). 2019;21:953-61.
Correa-Gallego C, Brennan MF, D'Angelica MI, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, Kingham TP, et al. Contemporary experience with postpancreatectomy hemorrhage: results of 1,122 patients resected between 2006 and 2011. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:616-21.