Surgery Today

, Volume 48, Issue 8, pp 790–795 | Cite as

Number of acinar cells at the pancreatic stump predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy

  • Naoki Umezaki
  • Daisuke Hashimoto
  • Shigeki Nakagawa
  • Yuki Kitano
  • Kensuke Yamamura
  • Akira Chikamoto
  • Fujio Matsumura
  • Hideo Baba
Original Article



To establish if the number of pancreatic acinar cells at the pancreatic cut end is a predictor of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).


The number of acinar cells was assessed histologically in 121 consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) between April, 2012 and July, 2016.


POPF developed in 23 of the 121 patients. Univariate analysis revealed that male sex, long operating time, high volume of blood loss, soft remnant pancreas, large pancreatic duct, and the number of pancreatic acinar cells were significantly associated with POPF. Multivariate analysis revealed that male sex (p = 0.022) and the number of pancreatic acinar cells (p < 0.0001) were independently associated with POPF. In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the area under curve was 0.83895 when the cut off value of the number of pancreatic acinar cells to predict POPF was 890. Sensitivity and specificity of the number of pancreatic acinar cells were 82.6 and 77.6%, respectively.


A large number of pancreatic acinar cells at the cut end of the stump is predictive of POPF after PD. Although POPF is associated with multiple factors and the number of acinar cells is only one of these, our study is the first to confirm this common intuition of surgeons, which has not been assessed definitively before.


Pancreaticoduodenectomy Postoperative pancreatic fistula Pancreatic acinar cells 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No financial support was received for this study. We report no proprietary or commercial interest in any product mentioned or concept discussed in this article.


  1. 1.
    Miyata H, Gotoh M, Hirai I, Kenjo A, Kitagawa Y, Shimada M, et al. A pancreaticoduodenectomy risk model derived from 8575 cases from a national single-race population (Japanese) using a web-based data entry system: the 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2014;259:773–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hirono S, Murakami Y, Tani M, Kawai M, Okada K, Uemura K, et al. Identification of risk factors for pancreatic exocrine insufficiency after pancreaticoduodenectomy using a 13C-labeled mixed triglyceride breath test. World J Surg. 2015;39:516–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Motoi F, Egawa S, Rikiyama T, Katayose Y, Unno M. Randomized clinical trial of external stent drainage of the pancreatic duct to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticojejunostomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99:524–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aoki S, Miyata H, Konno H, Gotoh M, Motoi F, Kumamaru H, et al. Risk factors of serious postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy and risk calculators for predicting postoperative complications: a nationwide study of 17,564 patients in Japan. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2017;24:243–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krautz C, Nimptsch U, Weber G, Mansky T, Grützmann. R Effect of hospital volume on in-hospital morbidity and mortality following pancreatic surgery in Germany. Ann Surg. 2017 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Otsubo T, Kobayashi S, Sano K, Misawa T, Ota T, Katagiri S, et al. Safety-related outcomes of the Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery board certification system for expert surgeons. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2017;24:252–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Satoi S, Yamamoto T, Yoshitomi H, Motoi F, Kawai M, Fujii T, et al. Developing better practices at the institutional level leads to better outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy in 3,378 patients: domestic audit of the Japanese Society of Pancreatic Surgery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2017;24:501–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hashimoto D, Chikamoto A, Harimoto N, Ikegami T, Uchiyama H, Yoshizumi T, et al. A comparative study on the complications of conventional and end-to-side inserting pancreatojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Today. 2017;47:238–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Machado M, Machado M. Systematic use of isolated pancreatic anastomosis after pancreatoduodenectomy: five years of experience with zero mortality. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:1584–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McMillan M, Malleo G, Bassi C, Allegrini V, Casetti L, Drebin J, et al. Multicenter, prospective trial of selective drain management for pancreatoduodenectomy using risk stratification. Ann Surg. 2017;265:1209–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Relles D, Burkhart R, Pucci M, Sendecki J, Tholey R, Drueding R, et al. Does resident experience affect outcomes in complex abdominal surgery? Pancreaticoduodenectomy as an example. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:279–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hashimoto D, Chikamoto A, Ohmuraya M, Hirota M, Baba H. Pancreaticodigestive anastomosis and the postoperative management strategies to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula formation after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Today. 2014;44:1207–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kawai M, Tani M, Hirono S, Miyazawa M, Shimizu A, Uchiyama K, et al. 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. 2011;253:495–501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Low J, Shukla A, Thorn. P Pancreatic acinar cell: new insights into the control of secretion. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2010;42:1586–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stockhausen KT. Declaration of Helsinki: revising ethical research guidelines for the 21st century. Med J Aust. 2000;172:252–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dale O, Salo M. The Helsinki Declaration, research guidelines and regulations: present and future editorial aspects. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1996;40:771–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clavien P, Barkun J, de Oliveira M, Vauthey J, Dindo D, Schulick R, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Japan Pancreas Society. General rules for the study of pancreatic cancer (the 6th edition). 2009.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Japan Pancreas Society. General rules for the study of pancreatic cancer (the 7th edition). 2016.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Japanese society of biliary surgery Society. General rules for surgical and pathological studies on cancer of the biliary tract (the 5th ed.). 2003.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Japanese society of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery. General rules for surgical and pathological studies on cancer of the biliary tract (the 6th ed.). 2013.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After. Surgery. 2017;161:584–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    DeOliveira M, Winter J, Schafer M, Cunningham S, Cameron J, Yeo C, et al. Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2006;244:931–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tani M, Kawai M, Hirono S, Hatori T, Imaizumi T, Nakao A, et al. Use of omentum or falciform ligament does not decrease complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: nationwide survey of the Japanese Society of Pancreatic Surgery. Surgery. 2012;151:183–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kawai M, Yamaue. H Analysis of clinical trials evaluating complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a new era of pancreatic surgery. Surg Today. 2010;40:1011–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nordback I, Räty S, Laukkarinen J, Järvinen S, Piironen A, Leppiniemi J, et al. A novel radiopaque biodegradable stent for pancreatobiliary applications–the first human phase I trial in the pancreas. Pancreatology. 2012;12:264–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sugiura T, Mizuno T, Okamura Y, Ito T, Yamamoto Y, Kawamura I, et al. Impact of bacterial contamination of the abdominal cavity during pancreaticoduodenectomy on surgical-site infection. Br J Surg. 2015;102:1561–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Okano K, Kakinoki K, Suto H, Oshima M, Kashiwagi H, Yamamoto N, et al. Persisting ratio of total amylase output in drain fluid can predict postoperative clinical pancreatic fistula. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2011;18:815–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yoshida H, Yamashita Y, Shimazu T, Cosatto E, Kiyuna T, Taniguchi H, et al. Automated histological classification of whole slide images of colorectal biopsy specimens. Oncotarget. 2017;8:90719–29.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lin JW, Cameron JL, Yeo CJ, Riall TS, Lillemoe KD. Risk factors and outcomes in post pancreaticoduodenectomy pancreaticocutaneous fistula. J Gastrointest Surg. 2004;8:951–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fujii T, Kanda M, Nagai S, Suenaga M, Takami H, Yamada S, et al. Excess weight adversely influences treatment length of postoperative pancreatic fistula: a retrospective study of 900 patients. Pancreas. 2015;44:971–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fujii T, Sugimoto H, Yamada S, Kanda M, Suenaga M, Takami H, et al. Modified Blumgart anastomosis for pancreaticojejunostomy: technical improvement in matched historical control study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:1108–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kawai M, Hirono S, Okada K, Sho M, Nakajima Y, Eguchi H, et al. Randomized controlled trial of pancreaticojejunostomy versus stapler closure of the pancreatic stump during distal pancreatectomy to reduce pancreatic fistula. Ann Surg. 2016;264:180–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naoki Umezaki
    • 1
  • Daisuke Hashimoto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shigeki Nakagawa
    • 1
  • Yuki Kitano
    • 1
  • Kensuke Yamamura
    • 1
  • Akira Chikamoto
    • 1
  • Fujio Matsumura
    • 2
  • Hideo Baba
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterological SurgeryKumamoto University Graduate School of Medical SciencesKumamotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Gastroenterological SurgeryOmuta Tenryo HospitalOmutaJapan

Personalised recommendations