4.6 Article

Evolution of the Whipple procedure at the Massachusetts General Hospital

期刊

SURGERY
卷 152, 期 3, 页码 S56-S63

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2012.05.022

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA117969] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Since Allen O. Whipple published his seminal paper in 1935, the procedure that bears his name has been performed widely throughout the world and is now a common operation in major medical centers. The goal of this study was to investigate the evolution of pancreatoduodenectomy at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). Methods. We sought to identify all pancreatoduodenectomies performed at the MGH since 1935. Cases were obtained from a computerized database, hospital medical records, and the MGH historical archive. Demographics, diagnosis, intraoperative variables and short-term surgical outcomes were recorded. Results. The first pancreatoduodenectomy at the MGH was carried out in 1941; since then, 2,050 Whipple procedures have been performed. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was the most frequent indication (36%). Pylorus preservation has been the most important variation in technique, accounting for 45% of Whipple procedures in the 1980s; observation of frequent delayed gastric emptying after this procedure led to decline in its use. Pancreatic fistula was the most frequent complication (13 %). Operative blood replacement and reoperation rates have decreased markedly over time; the most frequent indication for reoperation was intra-abdominal bleeding. Mortality has decreased from 45% to 0.8%, with sepsis and hypovolemic shock being the most frequent causes of death. Mean duration of hospital stay has decreased from > 30 to 9.5 days, along with an increasing readmission rate (currently 19%). Conclusion. The Whipple procedure in the 21st century is a well- established operation. Improvements in operative technique and perioperative care have contributed in making it a safe operation that continues evolving. (Surgery 2012;152:S56-63.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据