Advertisement

Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery

, Volume 403, Issue 6, pp 711–718 | Cite as

Intensive perioperative rehabilitation improves surgical outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy

  • Yuji Kitahata
  • Seiko Hirono
  • Manabu Kawai
  • Ken-ichi Okada
  • Motoki Miyazawa
  • Atsushi Shimizu
  • Ryouhei Kobayashi
  • Masaki Ueno
  • Shinya Hayami
  • Toshio Shimokawa
  • Ken Kouda
  • Fumihiro Tajima
  • Hiroki Yamaue
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 125 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Although the mortality rate for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has decreased to around 2.8–5% in high-volume centers, postoperative complications are still common in 30–50% of cases. Preoperative exercise, called “prehabilitation,” has been recently reported to reduce the frequency of complications after surgery. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the intensive perioperative rehabilitation on improvement of surgical outcomes for patients undergoing PD.

Methods

Between 2003 and 2014, 576 consecutive patients underwent PD in Wakayama Medical University Hospital. Of these, 331 patients received perioperative rehabilitation combined with prehabilitation and postoperative rehabilitation between 2009 and 2014. Previously, 245 patients underwent PD without perioperative rehabilitation between 2003 and 2008. We compared surgical outcomes between the patients undergoing PD with and without perioperative rehabilitation to evaluate the efficacy of our rehabilitation program.

Results

The frequency of pulmonary complications was significantly lower in patients undergoing PD with perioperative rehabilitation than those without (0.9% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.011). There were no significant differences in other complication or mortality rates. Length of hospital stay was also shorter in patients receiving perioperative rehabilitation than that of those not receiving it (16 vs. 24 days, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Intensive perioperative rehabilitation might reduce postoperative pulmonary complications and shorten postoperative hospital stay after PD. Therefore, we suggest that perioperative rehabilitation should be included as part of enhanced recovery after surgery for patients undergoing PD, although further large-scale studies are necessary to confirm our results.

Keywords

Perioperative rehabilitation Prehabilitation Pancreaticoduodenectomy Postoperative complication ERAS 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Clinical Research Center, Wakayama Medical University, for proofreading and editing the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

This study was approved by WMUH Institutional Review Board (No. 1805) with waived informed consent.

References

  1. 1.
    Kawai M, Tani M, Terasawa H, Ina S, Hirono S, Nishioka R, Miyazawa M, Uchiyama K, Yamaue H (2006) Early removal of prophylactic drains reduces the risk of intra-abdominal infections in patients with pancreatic head resection: prospective study for 104 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 244:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Partelli S, Crippa S, Castagnani R, Ruffo G, Marmorale C, Franconi AM, de Angelis C, Falconi M (2016) Evaluation of an enhanced recovery protocol after pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients. HPB(Oxford) 18:153–158Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Addeo P, Delpero JR, Paye F, Oussoultzoglou E, Fuchshuber PR, Sauvanet A, Sa Cunha A, le Treut YP, Adham M, Mabrut JY, Chiche L, Bachellier P, French Surgical Association (AFC) (2014) Pancreatic fistula after a pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma and its association with morbidity: a multicentre study of the French Surgical Association. HPB (Oxford) 16:46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Topal B, Fieuws S, Aerts R, Weerts J, Feryn T, Roeyen G, Bertrand C, Hubert C, Janssens M, Closset J, Belgian Section of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery (2013) Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre randomised trial. The Lancet Oncology 14:655–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vallance AE, Young AL, Macutkiewicz C, Roberts KJ, Smith AM (2015) Calculating the risk of a pancreatic fistula after a pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review. HPB(Oxford) 17:1040–1048Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, Neoptolemos J, Sarr M, Traverso W, Buchler M, International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roberts KJ, Sutcliffe RP, Marudanayagam R, Hodson J, Isaac J, Muiesan P, Navarro A, Patel K, Jah A, Napetti S, Adair A, Lazaridis S, Prachalias A, Shingler G, al-Sarireh B, Storey R, Smith AM, Shah N, Fusai G, Ahmed J, Hilal MA, Mirza DF (2015) Scoring system to predict pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a UK multicenter study. Ann Surg 261:1191–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tani M, Kawai M, Terasawa H, Ueno M, Hama T, Hirono S, Ina S, Uchiyama K, Yamaue H (2005) Complications with reconstruction procedures in pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Surg 29:881–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hughes MJ, Ventham NT, McNally S, Harrison E, Wigmore S (2014) Analgesia after open abdominal surgery in the setting of enhanced recovery surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 149:1224–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morgan KA, Lancaster WP, Walters ML, Owczarski SM, Clark CA, McSwain JR, Adams DB (2016) Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols are valuable in pancreas surgery patients. J Am Coll Surg 222:658–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lassen K, Coolsen MME, Slim K, Carli F, de Aguilar-Nascimento JE, Schäfer M, Parks RW, Fearon KC, Lobo DN, Demartines N, Braga M, Ljungqvist O, Dejong CH, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society, for Perioperative Care, European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition (IASMEN) (2013) Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations. World J Surg 37:240–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Connor GT, Buring JE, Yusuf S, Goldhaber SZ, Olmstead EM, Paffenbarger RS, Hennekens CH (1989) An overview of randomized trials of rehabilitation with exercise after myocardial infarction. Circulation 80:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sandercock G, Hurtado V, Cardoso F (2013) Changes in cardiorespiratory fitness in cardiac rehabilitation patients: a meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 167:894–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taylor RS, Brown A, Ebrahim S, Jolliffe J, Noorani H, Rees K, Skidmore B, Stone JA, Thompson DR, Oldridge N (2004) Exercise-based rehabilitation for patients with coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Med 116:682–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moran J, Guinan E, McCormick P, Larkin J, Mockler D, Hussey J, Moriarty J, Wilson F (2016) The ability of prehabilitation to influence postoperative outcome after intra-abdominal operation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery 160:1189–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hijazi Y, Gondal U, Aziz O (2017) A systematic review of prehabilitation programs in abdominal cancer surgery. Int J Surg 39:156–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barberan-Garcia A, Ubré M, Roca J, Lacy AM, Burgos F, Risco R, Momblán D, Balust J, Blanco I, Martínez-Pallí G (2018) Personalised prehabilitation in high-risk patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery: a randomized blinded controlled trial. Ann Surg 267:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    PEJv A, MSc MPRL et al (2014) Comparison of two preoperative inspiratory muscle training programs to prevent pulmonary complications in patients undergoing esophagectomy: a randomized controlled pilot study. Ann Surg Oncol 21:2353–2360Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Le Roy B, Pereira B, Bouteloup C et al (2016) Effect of prehabilitation in gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma: study protocol of a multicentric, randomised, control trial—the PREHAB study. BMJ Open 6:e012876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Onerup A, Angenete E, Bock D, Börjesson M, Fagevik Olsén M, Grybäck Gillheimer E, Skullman S, Thörn SE, Haglind E, Nilsson H (2017) The effect of pre- and post-operative physical activity on recovery after colorectal cancer surgery (PHYSSURG-C): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 18:212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hirono S, Kawai M, Okada K, Miyazawa M, Shimizu A, Kitahata Y, Ueno M, Shimokawa T, Nakao A, Yamaue H (2017) Mesenteric approach during pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Gastrointest Surg 1:208–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kawai M, Tani M, Hirono S, Miyazawa M, Shimizu A, Uchiyama K, Yamaue H (2011) Pylorus ring resection reduces delayed gastric emptying in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial of pylorus-resecting versus pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 253:495–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kawai M, Tani M, Hirono S, Okada KI, Miyazawa M, Yamaue H (2014) Pylorus-resecting pancreaticoduodenectomy offers long-term outcomes similar to those of pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: results of a prospective study. World J Surg 38:1476–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hirono S, Kawai M, Tani M, Okada KI, Miyazawa M, Shimizu A, Kitahata Y, Yamaue H (2014) Indication for the use of an interposed graft during portal vein and/or superior mesenteric vein reconstruction in pancreatic resection based on perioperative outcomes. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 399:461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tani M, Terasawa H, Kawai M, Ina S, Hirono S, Uchiyama K, Yamaue H (2006) Improvement of delayed gastric emptying in pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Surg 243:316–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hirono S, Kawai M, Okada KI, Miyazawa M, Kitahata Y, Hayami S, Ueno M, Yamaue H (2018) Modified Blumgart mattress suture versus conventional interrupted suture in pancreaticojejunostomy during pancreaticoduodenectomy: randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg:1.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002802
  27. 27.
    Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M, Allen P, Andersson R, Asbun HJ, Besselink MG, Conlon K, del Chiaro M, Falconi M, Fernandez-Cruz L, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Fingerhut A, Friess H, Gouma DJ, Hackert T, Izbicki J, Lillemoe KD, Neoptolemos JP, Olah A, Schulick R, Shrikhande SV, Takada T, Takaori K, Traverso W, Vollmer CR, Wolfgang CL, Yeo CJ, Salvia R, Buchler M, International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) (2017) The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161:584–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR, Neoptolemos JP, Padbury RT, Sarr MG, Traverso LW, Yeo CJ, Büchler MW (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142(5):761–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR, Neoptolemos JP, Padbury RT, Sarr MG, Yeo CJ, Büchler MW (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142:20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee JM, Lo AC, Yang SY, Tsau HS, Chen RJ, Lee YC (2005) Association of angiotensin-converting enzyme insertion/deletion polymorphism with serum level and development of pulmonary complications following esophagectomy. Ann Surg 241:659–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tani M, Kawai M, Hirono S, Ina S, Miyazawa M, Shimizu A, Yamaue H (2010) A prospective randomized controlled trial of internal versus external drainage with pancreaticojejunostomy for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ame J Surg 199:759–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tani M, Kawai M, Hirono S, Okada KI, Miyazawa M, Shimizu A, Kitahata Y, Yamaue H (2014) Randomized clinical trial of isolated Roux-en-Y versus conventional reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 101:1084–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kitahata Y, Kawai M, Yamaue H (2016) Clinical trials to reduce pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery—review of randomized controlled trials. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 1:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jemal A, Ward EM, Johnson CJ et al (2017) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2014, featuring survival. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Instit 109:djx030-djxCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wolfgang CL, Herman JM, Laheru DA, Klein AP, Erdek MA, Fishman EK, Hruban RH (2013) Recent progress in pancreatic cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 63:318–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chrousos GP (1995) The hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis and immune-mediated inflammation. N Engl J Med 332:1351–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wen XH, Kong HY, Zhu SM, Xu JH, Huang SQ, Chen QL (2004) Plasma levels of tumor necrotic factor-alpha and interleukin-6, -8 during orthotopic liver transplantation and their relations to postoperative pulmonary complications. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 3:38–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kragsbjerg P, Holmberg H, Vikerfors T (1995) Serum concentrations of interleukin-6, tumour necrosis factor-alpha, and C-reactive protein in patients undergoing major operations. Eur J Surg 161:17–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shimizu A, Tani M, Kawai M, Hirono S, Miyazawa M, Uchiyama K, Yamaue H (2011) Influence of visceral obesity for postoperative pulmonary complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 15:1401–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cederholm T, Bosaeus I, Barazzoni R, Bauer J, van Gossum A, Klek S, Muscaritoli M, Nyulasi I, Ockenga J, Schneider SM, de van der Schueren MAE, Singer P (2015) Diagnostic criteria for malnutrition - an ESPEN Consensus Statement. Clin Nutr 34:335–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    WHO. Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. Report of a WHO expert committee. World Health Organization technical report series 854.;1995Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Probst P, Haller S, Bruckner T, Ulrich A, Strobel O, Hackert T, Diener MK, Büchler MW, Knebel P (2017) Prospective trial to evaluate the prognostic value of different nutritional assessment scores in pancreatic surgery (NURIMAS Pancreas). Br J Surg 104:1053–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuji Kitahata
    • 1
  • Seiko Hirono
    • 1
  • Manabu Kawai
    • 1
  • Ken-ichi Okada
    • 1
  • Motoki Miyazawa
    • 1
  • Atsushi Shimizu
    • 1
  • Ryouhei Kobayashi
    • 1
  • Masaki Ueno
    • 1
  • Shinya Hayami
    • 1
  • Toshio Shimokawa
    • 2
  • Ken Kouda
    • 3
  • Fumihiro Tajima
    • 3
  • Hiroki Yamaue
    • 1
  1. 1.Second Department of Surgery, School of MedicineWakayama Medical UniversityWakayamaJapan
  2. 2.Clinical Study Support CenterWakayama Medical UniversityWakayamaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Rehabilitation MedicineWakayama Medical UniversityWakayamaJapan

Personalised recommendations