Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. May 21, 2015; 21(19): 5794-5804
Published online May 21, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i19.5794
Table 1 Experimental study showing the relationship between motilin and duodenectomy
Ref.YearStudy design and modelPrimary end pointObservations
Tanaka et al[74]1987Normal dog vs Duodenectomized dogPhase III contraction, plasma level of motilinAll control dogs showed characteristic MMC Duodenectomized dog showed non-typical, irregular and non-cyclic pattern of contraction Duodenectomized dog showed low plasma concentration of motilin without cyclical variation
Tanaka et al[75]1988Normal dog vs Duodenectomized dogInter-digestive gastric and small intestinal MMC plasma level of motilin and Polypeptide YMMC was abolished in duodenectomized dogs (3 out of 4 dogs) The other dogs showed intermittent cyclic, but markedly abnormal characteristics of gastric contraction Jejunal MMC appeared with short interval Duodenectomy abolished cyclic variation of plasma motilin and polypeptide Y
Suzuki et al[76]2001Conscious dog vs Duodenectomized dogPhase III contraction, plasma level of insulin, and motilinDuodenectomy resulted in no phase III contraction in upper GI tract Duodenectomy resulted in no fluctuation of plasma motilin (low level of motilin) Exogenous administration of motilin resulted in comparable response of phased III as shown in control
Malfertheiner et al[77]1989Normal dog vsPancreatic trypsinIn duodenectomized dog
Duodenectomized dogGI motility plasma motilin, PPYTrypsin secretion was not coordinated with inter-digestive motility, motilin, and PPY Inter-digestive motility was altered Plasma level of motilin and PPY were reduced, and showed no cyclic pattern
Itoh et al[78]1976Normal dogGI motility plasma motilinGastrointestinal contractile activity in the conscious dog, Digestive states: motilin had no influence upon the motor activity Inter-digestive states: had influence upon the motor activity
Vantrappen et al[79]1979HumanGI motility plasma motilin levelThe effect of exogenous motilin on interdigestive migrating motor complex Plasma motilin levels is one of the factor involved in the production of the activity front of the MMC in man
Sarna et al[80]1983Normal dogPlasma motilin levels Migrating myoelectric complexes (MMCs)Cause and effect relationship between plasma motilin levels and migrating myoelectric complexes Endogenous motilin does not initiate spontaneous mmcs MMC contractions release motilin
Table 2 Incidence of delayed gastric emptying according to different gastrointestinal reconstructive methods following pancreaticoduodenectomy
Ref.YearStudy designPrimary end pointObservations
Eshuis et al[81]2014In PPPD Antecolic (n = 125) vs Retrocolic (n = 121)DGENo differences in DGE (45 patients (36%) vs 41 (34%), absolute risk difference: 2.1% (95%CI: -9.8-14.0) No differences in need for postoperative nutritional support, other complications, hospital mortality, and median length of hospital stay
Tamandl et al[82]2014In PPPD, antecolic (n = 36) vs retrocolic (n = 28)DGENo differences in DGE (17.6% vs 23.1%, P = 0.628) No differences in length of hospital stay [13.0 (10.0-17.5) vs 12.5 (11.0-17.0) days; P = 0.446], time to regular diet [5 (5-7) d vs 5 (4-6) d, P = 0.353], and NG tube requirement [4 (3-7) d vs 3 (3-5) d, P = 0.600]
Imamura et al[83]2014In PPPD, antecolic (n = 58) vs vertical retrocolic (n = 58)DGENo difference in DGE (12.1% vs 20.7%, P = 0.316) At postoperative 6 mo, DGE was accelerated in antecolic group At postoperative 12 mo, better postoperative weight recovery in vertical retrocolic group (93.8% ± 1.2% vs 98.5 % ± 1.3%, P = 0.015)
Tani et al[84]2014In PD, Conventional (n = 76) vs Isolated Roux-en-Y (n = 77)POPF/DGENo differences in DGE and POPF POPF: conventional (34%) vs isolated Roux-en-Y (33%), P = 0.909 DGE: conventional (12%) vs isolated Roux-en-Y (15%), P = 0.609
Shimoda et al[85]2013In SSPPD, Billroth II (n = 52) vs Roux-en-Y (n = 49)DGELower DGE in Billroth II: (5.7% vs 30.4%, P = 0.028) Shorter hospital stay in Billroth II (31.6 ± 15.0 d vs 41.4 ± 20.5 d, P = 0.037) Significant association between POPF and DGE (P = 0.037)
Ke et al[86]2013In PDDGE/POPFNo differences in DGE and POPF
Continuous loop (n = 109) vs Roux-en-Y (n = 107)POPF: continuous loop (17.6%) vs Roux-en-Y (15.7%), P > 0.05 DGE: continuous loop (25%) vs Roux-en-Y (23%), P > 0.05
Gangavatiker et al[87]2011In conventional PD and PPPD Antecolic (n = 32) vs Retrocolic (n = 36)DGENo difference in DGE (34.4% vs 27.8%, P = 0.6)
Kurahara et al[88]2011In SSPPD, Antecolic (n = 24) vs retrocolic (n = 22)DGELower incidence of DGE in the antecolic group [20.8% vs 50%, P = 0.0364, especially in the incidence of DGE grade B/C (4.2% vs 27.3%, P = 0.0234)] Significantly shorter time to full resumption of diet in antecolic group No significant difference in other postoperative complications
Chijiiwa et al[89]2009In PPPD, Antecolic (n = 17) vs retrocolic (n = 18)DGENo difference in DGE DGE: 6% vs 22%, P = 0.34
Table 3 Definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula
Postoperative pancreatic fistula
GradeABC
General appearance (clinical condition)WellOften WellIll appearing, Bad
Medical or interventional approachNoYes or NoYes
Postoperative radiologic finding (US/CT)NegativeNegative or PositivePositive
Long-time drainage (≥ 21 d)NoUsually YesYes
ReoperationNoNoYes
Mortality related to POPFNoNoPossibly yes
Sign of infectionNoYesYes
SepsisNoNoYes
ReadmissionNoYes or NoYes or No
Table 4 Recent clinical studies about fatty liver after pancreaticoduodenectomy
Ref.YearPatient numberFollow-up periodDefinitions of NAFLDIncidence of fatty liver, n (%)Risk factors/observation
(mo)
Song et al[90]201122816When CTS-L was equal to or less than 10 HU When CTL/S was equal to or less than 0.9 HU15 (7.8)In multivariate analysis, Pancreatic fistula (HR = 3.332, P = 0.037) External pancreatic duct stent (HR = 4.530, P = 0.017)
Sato et al[91]20141106Hepatic CT value of less than 40 HU44 (40)In multivariate analysis,
Younger age (OR = 1.079, P = 0.002), Female (OR = 6.102, P < 0.001)
Small remnant pancreatic volume (< 10 mL), OR = 4.109, P = 0.009
Suspicion infection on POD7-28 (OR = 3.109, P = 0.027)
Kato et al[92]2010547.7 ± 2.1Hepatic CT value of less than 40 HU a20 (37.0)In multivariate analysis,
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (P < 0.05)
Pancreatic resection line (left side of SMA, SMA/PV) (P < 0.01)
Diarrhea (P < 0.05)
Nagai et al[71]20143616When CTL/S was equal to or less than 0.9 HU30 (8.3)In patients with NAFLD, CTL/S ratio was significantly improved by pancrelipase treatment
Nutritional status by total protein, albumin, and cholesterol was significantly improved by pancrelipase treatment
Severe diarrhea was improved
Malnutrition after PD might be cause for postoperative NAFLD
Ito et al[93]2014100NAWhen CTL/S was equal to or less than 0.9 HU12 (12)In multivariate analysis, Blood loss (HR = 1.001, P = 0.016)
Nakagawa et al[94]2014104Median 7.7 (2.5-23.6)When CTS-L was equal to or less than 10 HU26 (25)In multivariate analysis, Postoperative pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (HR = 4.16, P = 0.02)
Tanaka et al[72]20116012When CTL/S was equal to or less than 0.9 HU When CTL/S was equal to or less than 0.9 HU14 (23)In multivariate analysis,
Pancreatic head cancer (OR = 12.0, P = 0.006)
De novo NAFLD after PD was associated with body weight loss and decreases in serum levels of albumin, cholinesterase, and total cholesterol
After administration of pancreatic enzyme, body weight and serum concentrations of albumin, cholinesterase, and total cholesterol were markedly increased
In addition, hepatic steatosis and serum AST and ALT levels were also significantly improved by treatment
De novo NAFLD after PD was primarily
caused by pancreatic exocrine insufficiency