http://www.ijhpd.com/archive/2016-archive/100060IJHPDRZ2016-zijah/100060IJHPDRZ2016-zijah-full-text.php
Rattachement africain : ba. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Aims: The most demanding anastomosis of cephalic pancreaticoduodenectomy is pancreaticojejunostomy. In order to reduce the number of complications of pancreatico- jejunostomy, we worked to improve the technique of creating the anastomosis by modification of several aspects of the already standardized technique of creating a pancreaticojejunostomy. Materials and Methods: Observational cohort study was conducted on 50 patients who had undergone a cephalic pancreaticoduo-denectomy due to a periampullary carcinoma in the period from January 2011 to March 2016. We analyzed the effect of the presented technique on postoperative morbidity and mortality. Results: Of the 50 surgical patients, 31 (62%) were male. The mean age of the surgical patients was 58.8±10.08 years. Postoperative morbidity of 28% was lower than figures from literatures, which range from 35–43% (p > 0.05). Postoperative mortality was 6%, and in line with the figures from literature. Postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 6% of patients, which is also lower than 12.9% found in literature (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Postoperative morbidity in patients in whom a pancreaticojejunostomy was created with presented technique, including the incidence of a postoperative pancreatic fistula, was lower, although the difference was not statistically significant.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- http://www.ijhpd.com/archive/2016-archive/100060IJHPDRZ2016-zijah/100060IJHPDRZ2016-zijah-full-text.php
- Date Crossref
- 04/08/2017
- Éditeur
- Edorium Journals Pvt. Ltd.
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.