Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 4,276

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After

Open access
Bassi, Claudio, Marchegiani, Giovanni, Dervenis, Christos, Sarr, Micheal, Abu Hilal, Mohammad, Adham, Mustapha, Allen, Peter, Andersson, Roland, Asbun, Horacio J., Besselink, Marc G., Conlon, Kevin, Del Chiaro, Marco, Falconi, Massimo, Fernandez-Cruz, Laureano, Fernandez-del Castillo, Carlos, Fingerhut, Abe, Friess, Helmut, Gouma, Dirk J, Hackert, Thilo, Izbicki, Jakob, Lillemoe, Keith D., Neoptolemos, John P., Olah, Attila, Schulick, Richard, Shrikhande, Shailesh V., Takada, Tadahiro, Takaori, Kyoichi, Traverso, William, Vollmer, Charles, Wolfgang, Christopher L., Yeo, Charles J., Salvia, Roberto, Buchler, Marcus·2017·Surgery

Abstract

Background. In 2005, the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula developed a definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula that has been accepted universally. Eleven years later, because postoperative pancreatic fistula remains one of the most relevant and harmful complications of pancreatic operation, the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification has become the gold standard in defining postoperative pancreatic fistula in clinical practice. The aim of the present report is to verify the value of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula and to update the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification in light of recent evidence that has emerged, as well as to address the lingering controversies about the original definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Methods. The International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula reconvened as the International Study Group in Pancreatic Surgery in order to perform a review of the recent literature and consequently to update and revise the grading system of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Results. Based on the literature since 2005 investigating the validity and clinical use of the original International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification, a clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula is now redefined as a drain output of any measurable volume of fluid with an amylase level >3 times the upper limit of institutional normal serum amylase activity, associated with a clinically relevant development/condition related directly to the postoperative pancreatic fistula. Consequently, the former “grade A postoperative pancreatic fistula” is now redefined and called a “biochemical leak,” because it has no clinical importance and is no longer referred to a true pancreatic fistula. Postoperative pancreatic fistula grades B and C are confirmed but defined more strictly. In particular, grade B requires a change in the postoperative management; drains are either left in place >3 weeks or repositioned through endoscopic or percutaneous procedures. Grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula refers to those postoperative pancreatic fistula that require reoperation or lead to single or multiple organ failure and/or mortality attributable to the pancreatic fistula. Conclusion. This new definition and grading system of postoperative pancreatic fistula should lead to a more universally consistent evaluation of operative outcomes after pancreatic operation and will allow for a better comparison of techniques used to mitigate the rate and clinical impact of a pancreatic fistula. Use of this updated classification will also allow for more precise comparisons of surgical quality between surgeons and units who perform pancreatic surgery.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 4,276

Metadata

Authors
Bassi, C., Marchegiani, G., Dervenis, C., Sarr, M., Abu Hilal, M., Adham, M., Allen, P., Andersson, R., Asbun, H. J., Besselink, M. G., Conlon, K., Del Chiaro, M., Falconi, M., Fernandez-Cruz, L., Fernandez-del Castillo, C., Fingerhut, A., Friess, H., Gouma, D. J., Hackert, T., Izbicki, J., Lillemoe, K. D., Neoptolemos, J. P., Olah, A., Schulick, R., Shrikhande, S. V., Takada, T., Takaori, K., Traverso, W., Vollmer, C., Wolfgang, C. L., Yeo, C. J., Salvia, R., & Buchler, M.
Venue
Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
161
Issue
3
Pages
584-591
ISSN
0039-6060 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2565595087
Cited by
4,276
References
1
FWCI
97.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014
The paper
Bassi, C., Marchegiani, G., Dervenis, C., Sarr, M., Abu Hilal, M., Adham, M., Allen, P., Andersson, R., Asbun, H. J., Besselink, M. G., Conlon, K., Del Chiaro, M., Falconi, M., Fernandez-Cruz, L., Fernandez-del Castillo, C., Fingerhut, A., Friess, H., Gouma, D. J., Hackert, T., . . . Buchler, M. (2017). The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After. Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.