The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Pancreatic fistula after pancreatic head resection
Open accessAbstract
Background: Pancreatic resections can be performed with great safety. However, the morbidity rate is reported to be 40–60 per cent with a high prevalence of pancreatic complications. The aim of this study was to analyse complications after pancreatic head resection, with particular attention to morbidity and pancreatic fistula. Methods: From November 1993 to May 1999, perioperative and postoperative data from 331 consecutive patients undergoing pancreatic head resection were recorded prospectively. Data were analysed and grouped according to the procedure performed: classic Whipple resection, pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy (PPPD) or duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR). Results: Pancreatic head resection had a mortality rate of 2·1 per cent; the difference in mortality rate between the three groups (0·9–3·0 per cent) was not significant. Total and local morbidity rates were 38·4 and 28 per cent respectively. DPPHR had a lower morbidity, both local and systemic, than pancreatoduodenectomy. The prevalence of pancreatic fistula was 2·1 per cent in 331 patients, and was not dependent on the procedure or the aetiology of the disease. Reoperations were performed in 3·9 per cent of patients, predominantly for bleeding and non-pancreatic fistula. None of the patients with pancreatic fistula required reoperation or died in the postoperative course. Conclusion: A standardized technique and a continuing effort to improve perioperative management may be responsible for low mortality and surgical morbidity rates after pancreatic head resection. Pancreatic complications occur with Whipple, PPPD and DPPHR procedures with a similar prevalence. Pancreatic fistula no longer seems to be a major problem after pancreatic head resection and rarely necessitates surgical treatment.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Quality of Complication Reporting in the Surgical Literature
Martin, R. C. G., Brennan, M. F., & Jaques, D. P. (2002) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-200206000-00007 · Cited by 621
Cachexia Worsens Prognosis in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer
Bachmann, J., Heiligensetzer, M., Krakowski-Roosen, H., Büchler, M. W., Friess, H., & Martignoni, M. E. (2008) · Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11605-008-0505-z · Cited by 428
Self-citationHouse, M. G., Fong, Y., Arnaoutakis, D. J., Sharma, R., Winston, C. B., Protic, M., Gonen, M., Olson, S. H., Kurtz, R. C., Brennan, M. F., et al. (2008) · Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11605-007-0421-7 · Cited by 273
Nesidioblastosis with Glucagon-Reactive Islet Cell Hyperplasia: A Case Report
Martignoni, M. E., Kated, H., Stiegler, M., Büchler, M. W., Friess, H., Zimmermann, A., Schirp, U., & Nitzsche, E. U. (2003) · Pancreas · doi:10.1097/00006676-200305000-00016 · Cited by 17
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Büchler, M. W., Friess, H., Wagner, M., Kulli, C., Wagener, V, & Z'graggen, K.
- Venue
- Journal of British Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-07-01
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 883-889
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2111118302
- Cited by
- 416
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Pancreatic fistula after pancreatic head resection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01465.x
- The paper
- Büchler, M. W., Friess, H., Wagner, M., Kulli, C., Wagener, V, & Z'graggen, K. (2000). Pancreatic fistula after pancreatic head resection. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01465.x
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.