• J. Am. Coll. Surg. · Jun 2015

    Proposal and critical appraisal of exclusion criteria to the international study group for pancreatic surgery definition of delayed gastric emptying.

    • James M Healy, John W Kunstman, and Ronald R Salem.
    • Department of Surgery, Section of Surgical Oncology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
    • J. Am. Coll. Surg.. 2015 Jun 1;220(6):1036-1043.e1.

    BackgroundThe International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) defined criteria to objectively standardize delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). These criteria are inclusive by design, and may overestimate actual DGE incidence. This study critically examined individual DGE cases after PD to determine which patients are misclassified by these criteria, and for what reasons. Exclusion criteria designed to optimize the accepted DGE definition are proposed and evaluated.Study DesignWe performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected data. We reviewed 357 consecutive patients undergoing PD by a single surgeon; included were 52 cases of ISGPS-defined DGE (14.6%). A detailed evaluation was conducted of cases using accepted and novel diagnostic criteria.ResultsOf 52 ISGPS-defined DGE cases, 12 (23%) appeared not to represent genuine DGE on clinical review. Six required nasogastric tube placement for reoperation or management of emesis secondary to non-DGE conditions, 4 for reintubation without other evidence of DGE, and 2 remained NPO to treat non-DGE conditions. The proposed exclusion criteria use absence of gastric distention, passage of oral contrast, and presence of documented non-DGE conditions to determine genuine DGE. The incidence of true DGE was 11.2% in this cohort. The overall positive predictive value of the ISGPS criteria was 76.9%. Preoperative variables, DGE class, and incidence of disease-specific outcomes were similar with both definitions.ConclusionsThe ISGPS consensus guidelines promote a standardized, sensitive, and easily applicable definition of DGE, but may falsely classify DGE in approximately 23.1%. Introduction of the proposed exclusion criteria, which establish objective radiologic data as a component of the definition, could substantially limit this overestimation.Copyright © 2015 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…