JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Randomized Trial of Pylorus-Preserving vs. Pylorus-Resecting Pancreatoduodenectomy: Long-Term Morbidity and Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: The randomized controlled PROPP trial (DKRS00004191) showed that pylorus-resecting pancreatoduodenectomy (PR) is not superior to the pylorus-preserving procedure (PP) in terms of perioperative outcome, specifically in reduction of delayed gastric emptying. Non-superiority of PR was also confirmed in a recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. However, long-term data on morbidity and quality of life after PP compared to PR are sparse. The aim of this study was to investigate long-term outcomes of patients included in the PROPP trial.

METHODS: Between February 2013 and June 2016, a total of 188 patients underwent PD and were intraoperatively randomized to either preservation or resection of the pylorus (95 vs. 93 patients). For long-term follow-up, morbidity and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30/PAN26) were monitored until January 1, 2018. Statistical analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 34.3 (± 11.3) months. Sixty-three of the 188 patients had died (PP n = 33, PR n = 30), 29 patients were lost to follow-up (PP n = 17, PR n = 12), and the remaining 96 patients were included in long-term follow-up (PP n = 45, PR n = 51). There was no difference between PP and PR patients regarding endocrine and exocrine pancreatic function, receipt of adjuvant/palliative chemotherapy, cancer recurrence, and other relevant characteristics. Late cholangitis occurred significantly more often in patients following pylorus resection (P = 0.042). Reoperations, readmissions to hospital, and quality of life scores except pain were comparable between the two study groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Similar to short-term results, long-term follow-up showed no significant differences between pylorus resection compared to pylorus preservation.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app