
==== Front
Updates Surg
Updates Surg
Updates in Surgery
2038-131X
2038-3312
Springer International Publishing Cham

38662308
1836
10.1007/s13304-024-01836-0
Original Article
Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an Italian survey
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6638-4479
Ricci Claudio claudio.ricci6@unibo.it

110
Pecorelli Nicolò 1023
Esposito Alessandro 104
Capretti Giovanni 1056
Partelli Stefano 1023
Butturini Giovanni 107
Boggi Ugo 108
Cucchetti Alessandro 29
Zerbi Alessandro 1056
Salvia Roberto 104
Falconi Massimo 1023
Pan-Drain study groupAlberici Laura
Aleotti Francesca
Alfieri Sergio
Angrisani Marco
Anselmo Alessandro
Bannone Elisa
Barabino Matteo
Belfiori Giulio
Belli Andrea
Belli Giulio
Bonatti Chiara
Borgia Gianluca
Caccamo Lucio
Campra Donata
Caputo Damiano
Casadei Riccardo
Cescon Matteo
Citterio Davide
Colangelo Ettore
Colledan Michele
Coppola Roberto
Crippa Stefano
Dall’Olio Tommaso
De Carlis Luciano
De Giorgi Donato
De Luca Raffaele
Del Vecchio Antonella
Valle Raffaele Della
Di Benedetto Fabrizio
Di Dato Armando
Di Domenico Stefano
Di Meo Giovanni
Di Sebastiano Pierluigi
Giuseppe Maria Ettorre
Fogliati Alessandro
Frena Antonio
Gavazzi Francesco
Giacomo Batignani
Giannotti Luca
Giuliante Felice
Grazi Gianluca
Grottola Tommaso
Gruttadauria Salvatore
Ingaldi Carlo
Isabella Frigerio
Izzo Francesco
La Barba Giuliano
Langella Serena
Lionetto Gabriella
Lombardi Raffaele
Maganuco Lorenzo
Maggino Laura
Malleo Giuseppe
Manzini Lorenzo
Marchegiani Giovanni
Marchetti Alessio
Marcucci Stefano
Massani Marco
Mastrangelo Laura
Mazzaferro Vincenzo
Mazzola Michele
Memeo Riccardo
Anna Caterina Milanetto
Mocchegiani Federico
Moraldi Luca
Moro Francesco
Napoli Niccolò
Nappo Gennaro
Nardo Bruno
Carlo Alberto Pacilio
Paiella Salvatore
Papis Davide
Patriti Alberto
Patrono Damiano
Prosperi Enrico
Puglisi Silvana
Ramera Marco
Ravaioli Matteo
Rocca Aldo
Ruzzente Andrea
Sacco Luca
Scialantrone Grazia
Serenari Matteo
Tamburrino Domenico
Tatani Bruna
Troisi Roberto
Veneroni Luigi
Vivarelli Marco
Zanello Matteo
Zanus Giacomo
Caterina Costanza Zingaretti
Zironda Andrea

1 https://ror.org/01111rn36 grid.6292.f 0000 0004 1757 1758 Department of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
2 grid.18887.3e 0000000417581884 Division of Pancreatic Surgery and Transplantation, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
3 https://ror.org/01gmqr298 grid.15496.3f 0000 0001 0439 0892 “Vita-Salute” San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
4 https://ror.org/039bp8j42 grid.5611.3 0000 0004 1763 1124 General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, The Pancreas Institute-University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy
5 grid.417728.f 0000 0004 1756 8807 Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, Milan Italy
6 https://ror.org/020dggs04 grid.452490.e 0000 0004 4908 9368 Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
7 grid.513352.3 Surgical Department, HPB Unit Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera Del Garda, Italy
8 https://ror.org/03ad39j10 grid.5395.a 0000 0004 1757 3729 Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
9 grid.415079.e 0000 0004 1759 989X Morgagni e Pierantoni Hospital, Forlì, Italy
10 Surgical Taskforce of Italian Association for the Study of the Pancreas, Roma, Italy
25 4 2024
25 4 2024
2024
76 3 923932
15 1 2024
15 3 2024
© The Author(s) 2024, corrected publication 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain (IPD) use in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is still controversial. A survey was designed to investigate surgeons’ use of IPD in PD patients through 23 questions and one clinical vignette. For the clinical scenario, respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding the use of IPD elicited on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied. One hundred three (97.2%) respondents confirmed using at least two IPDs. The median regret due to the omission of IPD was 84 (67–100, IQR). The median regret due to the commission of IPD was 10 (3.5–20, IQR). The CR-POPF probability threshold at which drainage omission was the less regrettable choice was 3% (1–50, IQR). The threshold was lower for those surgeons who performed minimally invasive PD (P = 0.048), adopted late removal (P = 0.002), perceived FRS able to predict the risk (P = 0.006), and IPD able to avoid relaparotomy P = 0.036). Drain management policies after PD remain heterogeneous among surgeons. The regret model suggested that IPD omission could be performed in low-risk patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13304-024-01836-0.

Keywords

Drainage
Pancreatectomy
Survey
Questionnaire
Regret
Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di BolognaOpen access funding provided by Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

issue-copyright-statement© Italian Society of Surgery (SIC) 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) represents the major problem of pancreatic resections, increasing patient morbidity and mortality [1]. For decades, the use of intraperitoneal prophylactic drain (IPD) has been considered by pancreatic surgeons as one of the most important strategies to mitigate the negative effect of clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) [2]. The IPD could allow early recognition of POPF and POPF-related complications [3], such as post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) [4]. Moreover, IPD could mitigate the negative consequences of CR-POPF by evacuating pancreatic, biliary, enteric juice, and blood from the peritoneal cavity early [3]. However, several issues about IPD use and management remain under debate. Indeed, the dogma of routine IPD use was challenged, especially in low-risk pancreatic remnants, and several randomized studies reported similar complication rates when IPD was omitted [5–8]. Second, the timing of removal was recently investigated, hypothesizing that early removal could be safe [9–13]. Third, the use of active suction was recently investigated, suggesting that the type of drainage system does not influence the development of POPF [14]. Despite the availability of high-quality evidence, the use and management of IPD drain remain heterogeneous, even in high-volume centers [15]. Indeed, it seems that the adoption of modern drain policies, such as IPD omission or early removal, has been very slow by pancreatic surgeons despite the results of RCTs [15]. The present survey was designed to investigate the attitude of pancreatic surgeons in the Italian community toward the use of IPD. Additionally, the regret-based decision model was applied. Regret models were beneficial when medical choices could produce uncertain outcomes. Using the physician's emotional intelligence (“anticipated regret”) elicited by one or more clinical scenarios, it is possible to optimize decision-making by adopting the therapeutic strategy, which implies lesser regret in case of a wrong choice.

Materials and methods

Survey

An online survey designed using the online platform Survey Planet® was sent in June 2022 to the Italian community of pancreatic surgeons. Particularly, surgeons affiliated with the Italian Association for the Study of the Pancreas (AISP) and the Italian Association of Hepato-biliary-pancreatic Surgery (AICEP) were contacted. A link to the survey was forwarded using the official email address, the official Twitter and Facebook accounts of AISP, and the official WhatsApp channel of AICEP.

The survey was anonymous, but participants were asked to send an e-mail confirming their participation. All responses were mandatory, and each answer could not be subsequently modified to avoid bias. A selected panel of expert pancreatic surgeons from the Surgical Taskforce of Italian Association for the Study of the Pancreas prepared 23 queries about the use of drainage in PD: 14 multiple choice, 4 visual analog scales, and three open questions (Supplementary file). We collected general information about the participants (gender, age) and their professional level (resident, fellow, or expert surgeon). Also, information about the clinical practice setting was collected: country, institutional volume of pancreatic resection, and, if present, other types of institutional surgical activities (colorectal resection, liver resection, upper gastro-intestinal, or others). Subsequently, we asked the following questions: (i) routine use of Fistula Risk Score (FRS) according to Callery [15]; (ii) number and type of drains used; (iii) timing and indications for drain removal; and iv) motivations behind individual choices using a visual analogue scale (0–10). The study followed the COREQ standards for reporting qualitative research [16]. Ethical approval was not sought for the present study because of its survey nature.

Regret model

At the end of the survey, a clinical hypothetical vignette was presented to participants to measure their regret when choosing drain placement. The clinical case included a 67-year-old patient with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, in excellent general conditions, who underwent standard PD with firm pancreatic stump and dilated main pancreatic duct (> 5 mm); intraoperative blood loss was between 400 and 700 mL. The Trudeau catalog [17] (scenario two) was used to relate the FRS (in this case, equal to 1 point) with the CR-POPF risk of 3.6%.

Based on their knowledge, experience, and preference, pancreatic surgeons were asked to elicit their personal regret due to the loss of opportunity of CR-POPF mitigation if the drain was not placed, as well as the regret following the placement of a useless IPD. Thus, the regret of omission was here represented by the regret felt by the surgeon who omitted the IPD in a patient who otherwise may have benefited from the drainage in case of CR-POPF occurrence. On the other hand, the regret of the commission referred to the regret felt by the surgeon who decided to place an IPD, resulting in useless action because the patients did not develop CR-POPF.

The regret of omission was measured through the following question: “How would you rate the level of your regret, on a scale of 0 to 100 (0 = no regret, 100 = maximum regret) if you decided NOT to place an intraperitoneal prophylactic drain and the patient developed after PD a clinically relevant POPF requiring CT-percutaneous drainage?”. Regret of the commission was elicited as follows: “How would you rate the level of your regret, on a scale of 0 to 100 (0 = no regret, 100 = maximum regret) if you decided to place an intraperitoneal prophylactic drain after PD, and the patient experienced regular postoperative course without clinically relevant POPF?”.

In the regret model, Mt represents the POPF threshold at which regret of omission equals the regret of commission: Mt = (1 / [1 + (regret of omission/regret of commission)]) × 100 [18]. In other words, Mt is the probability of clinically relevant POPF at which we are indifferent between two management strategies. If the expected CR-POPF rate is above the threshold, the regret of not placing IPD (omission) will be larger than the regret of placing them (commission). Hence, we should place IPD to minimize regret.

Statistical analysis

Frequencies and percentages were used to describe categorical data. For continuous measures, mean, standard deviation (SD), median, and interquartile (IQR) ranges were used for continuous values. Age, gender, professional level, hospital type, the main activity of the surgical unit, implementation of minimally-invasive PD (MIPD), type and number of drainage, FRS use, the timing for drain removal, tailored strategy for the low and high-risk pancreatic remnant, perceived importance of FRS, closed system, drain mobilization, drain placement in preventing POPF grade B and C were tested in predicting regret of omission, commission and CR-POPF threshold. For these analyses, multilevel multivariate mixed-effects models were used. In these models, the geographic area of the participants was considered fixed because the study was not interested in regional differences. In other words, the total regression line represents the average Italian centers, independently from geographic origin. The effect of covariates was measured, reporting the coefficient and SE. Post-estimation mean regrets and threshold were calculated for each category. A P value < 0.05 indicates a non-negligible effect on the regrets or threshold. Statistical analyses were performed with Stata (Stata Statistical Software: Release 15, StataCorp, LLC, College Station, TX).

Results

Participants

The survey was released on July 08, 2022, and was closed on August 31, 2022. One hundred six surgeons completed the online questionnaire. At the time of the survey, 143 surgeons were registered in AISP and AICEP. The engagement rate was 74.1%. In Table 1, the general information of respondents is shown. The median age of respondents was 46 years (36–57). 88.7% of respondents were attending surgeons, while 11.3% were residents or fellows. Most surgeons (71.7%) worked in hospitals located in Northern Italy (Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna, Veneto, Piedmont Trentino South-Tyrol, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, and Liguria). The remaining 33% were located in Central (Lazio, Tuscany, and Marche) or Southern Italy (Puglia, Campania, Abruzzi, Basilicata, Calabria, and Sicily) of Italy. Most worked in public academic (51.9%) or non-academic (23.6%) hospitals. The remaining 26 participants worked in private academic (17.9%) or private non-academic (6.6%) hospitals. Most participants (66%) worked in high-volume (> 30 pancreatic resections yearly) centers, while 24.5% and 17.9% were in medium and low-volume hospitals, respectively. Regarding the main surgical activity of their division, 35.9% answered hepato-biliary, 30.2% answered pancreatic, and 5.7% answered colorectal resections. Only 28.3% declared to work in a division where all sub-specialties mentioned above were equally represented. Only 33.9% of surgeons declared to perform MIPD.Table 1 Characteristics of 106 participants

Characteristics of participants	N (%) or median (IQR)	
Sex		
 Female	18 (17)	
 Male	88 (83)	
Age, years	46 (36–57)	
Professional Level		
 Resident/Fellow	12 (11.3)	
 Attending	94 (88.7)	
Geographic area		
 North of Italy	71 (67)	
 Center of Italy	16 (15.1)	
 South of Italy	19 (17.9)	
Hospital type		
 Public, non-academic	25 (23.6)	
 Private, non-academic	7 (6.6)	
 Private, academic	19 (17.9)	
 Public, academic	55 (51.9)	
Hospital volume of pancreatic resection, yearly		
 < 10	5 (4.7)	
 11–20	14 (13.2)	
 21–30	17 (16)	
 31–40	9 (8.5)	
 41–50	10 (9.4)	
 51–100	25 (23.6)	
 > 100	26 (24.5)	
Type of surgical unit		
Colo-rectal	6 (5.7)	
Hepato-biliary	38 (35.9)	
Pancreatic	32 (30.2)	
General surgery, including all sub-specialties	30 (28.3)	
MIPD		
No	70 (66.1%)	
Yes	36 (33.9%)	
IQR interquartile range, MIPD Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy

Use and management of drainage

The use and management of drains are reported in Table 2. Most surgeons (49.1%) declared using an Easy Flow or Penrose-type passive drain. The second most used drainage (33%) was a closed system (Jackson-Pratt or Blake drainage) with or without active suction. Robison drainage (i.e., silicone round drain with closed system) was used only by 15.1% of participants. Almost all respondents place two or more drains (97.2%) after PD. Only 24.5% of surgeons remove the IPD within the third POD despite the criteria for early removal being satisfied. Two-thirds of the respondents (66%) routinely use FRS. The median perceived importance of FRS in predicting CR-POPF was 2 (0–6, IQR); the median perceived importance of a closed system in predicting CR-POPF grade B was 3 (0–5, IQR); the perceived importance of drain mobilization in mitigating CR-POPF grade B was 5 (2–7, IQR); the perceived importance of drain in preventing CR-POPF grade C was 6 (3–8, IQR).Table 2 Survey results about the use of drains after pancreaticoduodenectomy

Characteristics	n (%) or median (IQR)	
Type of drainage		
 Easy flow/Penrose drain	52 (49.1)	
 Robinson silicone round drain	16 (15.1)	
 Jackson-Pratt or Blake drainage, with closed system and active suction	19 (17.9)	
 Jackson-Pratt or Blake drainage, with closed system and without active suction	18 (17)	
 Others	1 (0.9)	
Number of drainages routinely used		
 One	3 (2.8)	
 Two	72 (67.9)	
 More than two	31 (29.3)	
Change of strategy in high-risk pancreatic remnant		
 No	86 (81.1)	
 Yes	20 (18.9)	
Change of strategy in low-risk pancreatic remnant		
 No	91 (85.9)	
 Yes	15 (14.2)	
Timing of removala		
 ≤ III POD	26 (24.5)	
 IV–V POD	44 (41.5)	
 VI–VII POD	30 (28.3)	
 > VII POD	6 (5.7)	
FRS use		
 No	36 (34)	
 Yes	70 (66)	
Perceived importance of FRS in predicting CR-POPFb	2 (0–6)	
Perceived importance of closed system in preventing CR-POPF grade Bb	3 (0–5)	
Perceived importance of drain mobilization in mitigating CR-POPF grade Bb	5 (2–7)	
Perceived importance of drain in preventing a re-interventionb	6 (3–8)	
IQR interquartile range, FRS Fistula Risk Score, POD Postoperative days, FRS Fistula Risk Score, CR-POPF Clinically Relevant Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula

aIn case of low drain fluid amylase concentration, patient in good clinical conditions and absence of suspicious fluid in the drain

bScale from 0 to 10

A change of strategy in low-risk pancreatic stumps was declared by 14.2% of respondents, reducing the number of drains (5.6%) or not placing any (4.7%). A change of strategy in high-risk pancreatic remnants was declared by 18.9% of respondents, increasing the number of drains (10.4%), changing the type (4.7%), or both (3.8%).

Regret analysis

Regret of omission, commission, and thresholds are reported in Fig. 1. The mean regret of omission was 73 (± 31, SD), with a median of 80 (60–100, IQR). The mean regret of the commission was 10 (± 16.8, SD) with a median of 1 (1–10). The mean CR-POPF risk probability threshold at which drainage omission was the less regrettable choice was consequently 12(± 18) % with a median of 3% (1–18%, IQR). In Fig. 2, we reported the percentage of responders who perceived IPD omission as the least regrettable choice for each value of FRS and related probability of CR-POPF.Fig. 1 Box plots reporting regret of omission, commission, and CR-POPF threshold in the clinical vignette presented to the 106 respondents

Fig. 2 Percentage of responders who consider the IPD omission as the least regrettable choice based on the risk of CR-POPF. The x-axis represents the Fistula Risk Score categories (FRS); the blue line reports the risk of CR-POPF related to each category of FRS according to Trudeau et al. [22]; the orange line reports the percentage of responders who perceived the IPD omission as the least regrettable choice for the related risk of CR-POPF

Multilevel effect multivariate regressions are reported in Supplementary Table 1, while the estimated mean of regrets and threshold was reported in Table 3. Age, gender, professional level, hospital type, active suction preference, custom to change strategy based on the risk, and perceived importance of drain mobilization did not affect regrets and threshold for CR-POPF. Responders working in high-volume hospitals had significantly lower mean regret of omission than those working in low-volume hospitals (77 ± 19 vs. 71 ± 18; P < 0.001).Table 3 Postestimation values after multilevel mixed-effects multivariate regression

Covariatesa,b	Regret of omission	Regret of commission	Risk threshold for CR-POPFc	
Mean ± SD	P value	Mean ± SD	P value	Mean ± SD	P value	
Hospital volume							
 Low–Medium	77 ± 19	 < 0.001	12 ± 9	 < 0.001	12 ± 7	0.299	
 High	71 ± 18		7 ± 7		13 ± 7		
Prominent activity of surgical unit							
 Colorectal	68 ± 21	Ref	24 ± 8	Ref	23 ± 5	Ref	
 Hepato-biliary	81 ± 15	0.405	11 ± 6	0.542	12 ± 6	0.781	
 Pancreatic	72 ± 19	0.021	10 ± 6	0.727	13 ± 7	0.722	
 General surgery, including all sub-specialties	67 ± 17	0.483	4 ± 7	0.075	11 ± 7	0.467	
MIPD							
 No	75 ± 20	0.224	9 ± 8	0.741	13 ± 7	0.048	
 Yes	69 ± 16		10 ± 7		12 ± 7		
Type of drain							
 Robinson, Jackson-Pratt, or Blake	76 ± 17	0.676	12 ± 8	 < 0.001	14 ± 6	0.578	
 Easy Flow/Penrose	70 ± 20		7 ± 6		11 ± 8		
Type of system							
 Open	75 ± 20	0.546	6 ± 6	 < 0.001	11 ± 7	0.004	
 Close	69 ± 16		14 ± 7		15 ± 6	
Number of drains							
 One or two	67 ± 16	0.004	10 ± 7	0.516	14 ± 7	0.199	
 More than two	90 ± 13		8 ± 9		8 ± 6	
FRS use							
 No	88 ± 11	0.001	8 ± 3	0.659	9 ± 6	0.211	
 Yes	66 ± 17		10 ± 8		15 ± 7	
Timing for drain removal							
 Early	60 ± 18	0.906	7 ± 9	0.355	15 ± 9	0.002	
 Late	78 ± 17		10 ± 7		12 ± 6	
Importance of FRS in predicting CR-POPF (VAS scale)d							
 ≤ 2	80 ± 16	 < 0.001	7 ± 9	0.011	10 ± 6	0.006	
 > 2	63 ± 18		13 ± 8		17 ± 7		
Importance of closed system in preventing grade B CR-POPF (VAS scale)d							
 ≤ 3	71 ± 19	0.054	6 ± 6	 < 0.001	12 ± 7	0.201	
 > 3	76 ± 17		14 ± 7		13 ± 7		
Importance of drain in preventing re-intervention (VAS scale)d							
 ≤ 6	68 ± 18	 < 0.001	11 ± 7	 < 0.001	14 ± 7	0.036	
 > 6	79 ± 18		7 ± 8		10 ± 7		
FRS Fistula Risk Score, CR-POPF Clinically Relevant Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula

aWe report only covariates significantly affecting regret of omission, commission, or threshold

bAge, gender, professional level, hospital type, active suction preference, custom to change strategy based on the risk, and perceived importance of drain mobilization did not affect regrets and threshold for CR-POPF

cThe threshold indicates the CR-POPF risk rate at which the drain omission is the least regrettable choice, calculated with FRS

dThe median values of visual analogic scale (VAS) are used to dichotomize the variables

Compared with colorectal surgeons, participants who work in a specialized pancreas unit had an increased mean regret of omission (72 ± 19 vs. 68 ± 21; P = 0.021). However, mean regrets of commission and the final threshold for CR-POPF remain unaffected by the prominent activity of the surgical unit. Comparing MIPD and non-MIPD surgeons, the mean final threshold for CR-POPF was 13 ± 7% vs. 12 ± 7% (P = 0.048), respectively. Surgeons who preferred Easy Flow or Penrose drains (7 ± 6) had a significantly lower (P < 0.001) mean regret of commission than those who preferred Robinson, Jackson-Pratt, or Blake (12 ± 8) drains. Participants who used a closed system had higher threshold for CR-POPF than those adopted open systems (15 ± 6% vs. 11 ± 7; P = 0.004). Obviously, the answerer who used more than two drains after PD experienced a higher regret of omission than those who placed only one or two drains (90 ± 13 vs. 67 ± 16; P = 0.004). The survey participants who used the FRS score had a lower mean regret of omission than those who did not use this prediction system (88 ± 11 vs. 66 ± 17; P = 0.001). The responders who routinely removed the drain within POD 3 had a superior mean threshold (12 ± 7 vs. 15 ± 9; P = 0.002). The higher the perceived importance of FRS in predicting CR-POPF, the lower the regret of omission (P ≤ 0.001) and CR-POPF threshold (1.1 ± 0.4; P = 0.006). On the contrary, increasing the perceived importance of FRS, the regret of the commission was slightly higher (P = 0.011). The perceived importance of the closed system in preventing Grade B CR-POPF slightly influenced the regret of the commission (P < 0.001) but not the regret of omission and CR-POPF threshold. The perceived importance of drain placement in preventing Grade C CR-POPF influenced both regrets and threshold: the higher the perceived importance, the higher the regret of omission (P < 0.001); the higher the perceived importance, the lower the regrets of commission (P < 0.001) and CR-POPF threshold (P = 0.036).

Discussion

The present survey demonstrated that Italian pancreatic surgeons routinely use IPD after PD, as 98% of participants declared placing two or more drains at the end of surgery. Only a minority of interviewed surgeons reported a change in perioperative drain strategy based on the intraoperative characteristics of the pancreatic remnant and the relative pancreatic fistula risk score, suggesting a preference for a standard and consistent drain policy rather than a selective POPF mitigation strategy. In addition, our work highlighted the large heterogeneity in drain type preference and postoperative drain management among the Italian community of pancreatic surgeons.

This survey outlines a “real-life” scenario in which the IPD is deemed as a necessary tool for safely monitoring and managing the postoperative course after PD. This attitude is confirmed by the reluctance to remove the IPD early, even when patients were clinically well, drain fluid amylase concentration was low, and the quality of the fluid was not suspicious. Indeed, only one out of four survey participants adopts an early drain removal policy in their practice. Surprisingly, more than 30% of surgeons remove the IPD very late, after POD5, even when the postoperative course was uneventful. These data are in contrast with the available evidence. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of RCTs showed that IPD omission after pancreatic resection is a safe alternative to their routine use in low-risk scenarios [2]. Moreover, at least five recent RCTs [9–13] supported adopting early removal in patients with low risk for CR-POPF and regular postoperative stay. Indeed, in recent recommendations from the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society for patients undergoing PD, the level of evidence in favor of selective IPD omission and early removal was moderate and high, respectively [19]. It may appear surprising that one of the cornerstones of the ERAS philosophy finds a high resistance in the pancreatic surgeon community. Still, it is no secret that surgical traditions are the most challenging to abandon.

The present survey suggested that the dogma of mandatory drainage persists, confirming the results of a previous survey by Pergolini et al. [20], including 42 expert pancreatic surgeons. However, in our survey, we also investigated the reasons for resistance to selective IPD omission using the “regret theory” approach. The regret methodology gives a scientific value to emotional intelligence: a physician making a nonrepeatable decision under uncertainty (e.g., omission or not of therapy) could experience regret in case of a negative result. This regret can be measured and used to optimize the choices [21]. Measuring the regret of omission and commission in a prespecified scenario allows us to calculate the acceptable probability threshold for a negative event, at which the omission of therapy is the least regrettable choice.

In the current survey, we asked participants to anticipate the regret, using a clinical case of a patient undergoing PD with an expected low risk of CR-POPF. By asking the responders to elicit both regrets (commission and omission) in a real-life scenario, we captured all different shades of the emotional intelligence of interviewed surgeons without imposing pre-concepts about the drain-less policy. Moreover, a low-risk scenario was chosen in intermediate and high-risk scenarios of CR-POPF; the omission of drainage is generally not accepted by pancreatic surgeons. For this reason, the drain-less approach could not reflect a real-life problem when the risk of CR-POPF is not low.

As expected, the median regret of omission was very high, while the regret of the commission was very low, confirming the pancreatic surgeons' unwillingness to accept the selective IPD omission. The median value of CR-POPF risk probability, at which the least regrettable choice was the IPD omission, was 3%. This result may appear to strengthen IPD omissions as a definitive choice in low-risk scenarios. Using the FRS catalog of Trudeau et al. [16] that reported granular data about FRS scenarios occurrence and CR-POPF risk, it is possible to estimate how many patients could be managed without drainage based on the emotional intelligence of pancreatic surgeons. In fact, it is surprising that nearly 15% of patients who underwent PD could have a risk of CR-POPF equal to or inferior to 3%. For this reason, based on regret theory, nearly one patient out of six/seven could be managed with selective IPD omission despite worldwide reluctance. We observed some interesting findings by analyzing factors related to the CR-POPF threshold and regrets. Regret of omission was reduced in centers at high volume for pancreatic surgery (> 30 pancreatic resections/year). Surgeons who work in high-volume hospitals can rely on key expertise and resources, such as interventional radiology [22] and operative endoscopy [23], that can manage peri-anastomotic fluid collections and other life-threatening complications related to POPF (i.e., post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage). At the same time, dedicated pancreatic surgeons perceived and feared, more than other surgeons, the devastating potential effects of undrained CR-POPF. Interestingly, the regret of omission was reduced in those surgeons who looked at FRS as trustworthy in predicting CR-POPF. Thus, in the presence of a well-established and valid tool to anticipate CR-POPF risk, the attitude of surgeons in adopting selective IPD omission is enhanced. In other words, the reluctance to adopt IPD omission seems more related to the lack of confidence in the risk score system to predict the CR-POPF risk than to an absolute refusal of this strategy. Indeed, when surgeons were more confident using FRS, the IPD omission represented the least regrettable choice for CR-POPF probability higher than 3%. However, the problem seems to be the overall low confidence in FRS’s ability. In fact, the median perceived importance is very low (2 out of 10 on the VAS scale) despite the amount of literature available in favor of this score [15, 16]. Also, the role of IPD in preventing reintervention is generally overestimated, and the higher the perceived importance of drainage in preventing grade C CR-POPF, the higher the regret of omission. In fact, the CR-POPF threshold, at which IPD omission is the least regrettable choice, was lower than 3% for the surgeons who overestimated the role of IPD in preventing reintervention. An interesting finding is that minimally invasive PD surgeons have a shallow CR-POPF threshold. In other words, pancreatic surgeons perceive the minimally invasive approach as a procedure more at risk for CR-POPF than open. For this reason, selective IPD omission is often considered a regrettable strategy in very low-risk scenarios. In contrast, surgeons who used a closed drain system seem to adopt IPD omission also in settings with a higher risk of CR-POPF (more than 3%). This may be explained by the theory of retrograde infection supported by those pancreatic surgeons using the closed system; in the event of a small biochemical leak, the presence and persistence of a peripancreatic drain could increase the fistula output and facilitate a retrograde infection, converting it into a CR-POPF [24, 25]. However, a recent non-inferiority trial has demonstrated that more than 60% of bacteria contaminating the drainage fluid after PD were attributable to human gut flora rather than external bacteria [2].

The current study has some limitations. First, the group of survey participants was very heterogeneous, including surgeons performing pancreatic resections in low and high-volume settings in academic and non-academic institutions. Nonetheless, the survey is a snapshot of “real-life” clinical practice in Italian hospitals. Second, each respondent declared their habits based on personal and center experience, which did not necessarily reflect adequate and updated knowledge of the literature available. The third limitation is represented by the fact that we assumed that a single decision-maker is involved in the IPD omission or commission.

In conclusion, this survey demonstrated that, despite the availability of several RCTs and metanalysis about IPD use after PD, a certain reluctance from pancreatic surgeons to abandon the dogmas exists. This reluctance appears related to multiple factors: (i) the shortcomings of available risk prediction tools for CR-POPF; (ii) the uncertainty of outcomes from a minimally invasive approach in PD; (iii) the concern about an increase in the re-laparotomy rate. Generally, an interesting observation was that, despite the amount of literature available encouraging early removal [5] or drainage omission [8] in low-risk patients, the customs of Italian pancreatic surgeons remain very conservative. Nonetheless, evaluating emotional intelligence, which depends on experience and knowledge, can help surgeons understand that selective IPD omission could be the least regrettable choice when the risk of CR-POPF is low. Considering this, it seems very important an educational process to ameliorate the adoption of a tailored drain policy risk based in patients who underwent PD. On the other hand, it is important to underline that patients with intermediate or high risk of CR-POPF largely benefit from drain placement [28]. Further studies are required to achieve progress in solving this issue.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.Supplementary file1 (DOCX 281 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 24 KB)

Acknowledgements

This research did not receive grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The survey was conducted with the endorsement of the Italian Association for the Study of the Pancreas (AISP) and in collaboration with the Italian Association of Hepato-biliary-pancreatic Surgery (AICEP). Study group for pancreatic drainages utilization (Pan-Drain), collaborators: Laura Alberici, Francesca Aleotti, Sergio Alfieri, Marco Angrisani, Alessandro Anselmo, Elisa Bannone, Matteo Barabino, Giulio Belfiori, Andrea Belli, Giulio Belli, Chiara Bonatti, Gianluca Borgia, Lucio Caccamo, Donata Campra, Damiano Caputo, Riccardo Casadei, Matteo Cescon, Davide Citterio, Ettore Colangelo, Michele Colledan, Roberto Coppola, Stefano Crippa, Tommaso Dall'Olio, Luciano De Carlis, Donato De Giorgi, Raffaele De Luca, Antonella Del Vecchio, Raffaele Della Valle, Fabrizio Di Benedetto, Armando Di Dato, Stefano Di Domenico, Giovanni Di Meo, Pierluigi Di Sebastiano, Maria Ettorre Giuseppe, Alessandro Fogliati, Antonio Frena, Francesco Gavazzi, Batignani Giacomo, Luca Gianotti, Felice Giuliante, Gianluca Grazi, Tommaso Grottola, Salvatore Gruttadauria, Carlo Ingaldi, Frigerio Isabella, Francesco Izzo, Giuliano La Barba, Serena Langella, Gabriella Lionetto, Raffaele Lombardi, Lorenzo Maganuco, Laura Maggino, Giuseppe Malleo, Lorenzo Manzini, Giovanni Marchegiani, Alessio Marchetti, Stefano Marcucci, Marco Massani, Laura Mastrangelo, Vincenzo Mazzaferro, Michele Mazzola, Riccardo Memeo, Caterina Milanetto Anna, Federico Mocchegiani, Luca Moraldi, Francesco Moro, Niccolò Napoli, Gennaro Nappo, Bruno Nardo, Alberto Pacilio Carlo, Salvatore Paiella, Davide Papis, Alberto Patriti, Damiano Patrono, Enrico Prosperi, Silvana Puglisi, Marco Ramera, Matteo Ravaioli, Aldo Rocca, Andrea Ruzzente, Luca Sacco, Grazia Scialantrone, Matteo Serenari, Domenico Tamburrino, Bruna Tatani, Roberto Troisi, Luigi Veneroni, Marco Vivarelli, Matteo Zanello, Giacomo Zanus, Costanza Zingaretti Caterina, Andrea Zironda.

Author contributions

Ricci Claudio: study planning, first draft manuscript, formal analysis. Nicolò Pecorelli: study planning, first draft manuscript. Alessandro Esposito: study planning, collect the data. Stefano Partelli: study planning, collect the data. Giovanni Capretti: study planning, collect the data. Giovanni Butturini: study planning, collect the data, formal analysis. Ugo Boggi: study planning, manuscript revision. Alessandro Zerbi: manuscript revision. Roberto Salvia: manuscript revision & approval. Massimo Falconi: manuscript revision & approval. Pan-drain study groups: collaborators in the survey.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Data Availability

The data of the survey were available, on request.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest or disclosures to report.

Research involving human participants animals and Informed consent

The study is a survey and it do not involve human or animal.

The complete details of author involved in Pan-Drain study group are given in acknowledgements.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Claudio Ricci, Nicolò Pecorelli, and Stefano Partelli share the first authorship.

Roberto Salvia and Massimo Falconi share the senior authorship.

Change history

9/3/2024

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1007/s13304-024-01967-4
==== Refs
References

1. 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) The 2016 update of the international study group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after Surgery 2017 161 3 584 591 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014 28040257
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(3):584–591. 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.01428040257 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014
2. Hüttner FJ Probst P Knebel P Meta-analysis of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery Br J Surg 2017 104 660 668 10.1002/bjs.10505 28318008
Hüttner FJ, Probst P, Knebel P et al (2017) Meta-analysis of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery. Br J Surg 104:660–66828318008 10.1002/bjs.10505
3. van Santvoort HC Postoperative pancreatic fistula: focus should be shifted from early drain removal to early management BJS Open 2023 6 7 zrac156 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac156
van Santvoort HC (2023) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: focus should be shifted from early drain removal to early management. BJS Open 6(7):zrac15610.1093/bjsopen/zrac156
4. Wente MN Veit JA Bassi C Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an international study group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) definition Surgery 2007 142 20 25 10.1016/j.surg.2007.02.001 17629996
Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an international study group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142:20–2517629996 10.1016/j.surg.2007.02.001
5. Ricci C Grego DG Alberici L Early versus late drainage removal in patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials using trial sequential analysis Ann Surg Oncol. 2024 31 2943 2950 10.1245/s10434-024-14959-w 38402268
Ricci C, Grego DG, Alberici L et al (2024) Early versus late drainage removal in patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials using trial sequential analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 31:2943–295038402268 10.1245/s10434-024-14959-w
6. Conlon KC Labow D Leung D Prospective randomized clinical trial of the value of intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatic resection Ann Surg 2001 234 487 493 10.1097/00000658-200110000-00008 11573042
Conlon KC, Labow D, Leung D et al (2001) Prospective randomized clinical trial of the value of intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatic resection. Ann Surg 234:487–49311573042 10.1097/00000658-200110000-00008
7. Van Buren G Bloomston M Hughes SJ A randomized prospective multicenter trial of pancreaticoduodenectomy with and without routine intraperitoneal drainage Ann Surg 2014 259 605 612 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000460 24374513
Van Buren G, Bloomston M, Hughes SJ et al (2014) A randomized prospective multicenter trial of pancreaticoduodenectomy with and without routine intraperitoneal drainage. Ann Surg 259:605–61224374513 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000460
8. Witzigmann H Diener MK Kienkötter S No need for routine drainage after pancreatic head resection: the dual-center, randomized, controlled PANDRA trial (ISRCTN04937707) Ann Surg 2016 264 528 537 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001859 27513157
Witzigmann H, Diener MK, Kienkötter S et al (2016) No need for routine drainage after pancreatic head resection: the dual-center, randomized, controlled PANDRA trial (ISRCTN04937707). Ann Surg 264:528–53727513157 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001859
9. Bassi C Molinari E Malleo G Early versus late drain removal after standard pancreatic resections: results of a prospective randomized trial Ann Surg 2010 252 207 214 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e61e88 20622661
Bassi C, Molinari E, Malleo G et al (2010) Early versus late drain removal after standard pancreatic resections: results of a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 252:207–21420622661 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e61e88
10. McMillan MT Malleo G Bassi C Drain management after pancreatoduodenectomy: reappraisal of a prospective randomized trial using risk stratification J Am Coll Surg 2015 221 4 798 809 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.07.005 26278037
McMillan MT, Malleo G, Bassi C et al (2015) Drain management after pancreatoduodenectomy: reappraisal of a prospective randomized trial using risk stratification. J Am Coll Surg 221(4):798–80926278037 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.07.005
11. Dembinski J Mariette C Tuech JJ Early removal of intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatoduodenectomy in patients without postoperative fistula at POD3: results of a randomized clinical trial J Visc Surg 2019 156 2 103 112 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2018.06.006 30713100
Dembinski J, Mariette C, Tuech JJ et al (2019) Early removal of intraperitoneal drainage after pancreatoduodenectomy in patients without postoperative fistula at POD3: results of a randomized clinical trial. J Visc Surg 156(2):103–11230713100 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2018.06.006
12. Dai M Liu Q Xing C Early drain removal after major pancreatectomy reduces postoperative complications: a single-center, randomized, controlled trial J Pancreatol 2020 3 2 10.1097/JP9.0000000000000049
Dai M, Liu Q, Xing C et al (2020) Early drain removal after major pancreatectomy reduces postoperative complications: a single-center, randomized, controlled trial. J Pancreatol 3:210.1097/JP9.0000000000000049
13. Dai M Liu Q Xing C Early drain removal is safe in patients with low or intermediate risk of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a multicentre: a randomized controlled trial Ann Surg 2022 275 e307 e314 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004992 34117153
Dai M, Liu Q, Xing C et al (2022) Early drain removal is safe in patients with low or intermediate risk of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a multicentre: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 275:e307–e31434117153 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004992
14. Park LJ Baker L Smith H Lemke M Davis A Abou-Khalil J Martel G Balaa FK Bertens KA Passive versus active intra-abdominal drainage following pancreatic resection: does a superior drainage system exist? A systematic review and meta-analysis World J Surg 2021 45 9 2895 2910 10.1007/s00268-021-06158-5 34046692
Park LJ, Baker L, Smith H, Lemke M, Davis A, Abou-Khalil J, Martel G, Balaa FK, Bertens KA (2021) Passive versus active intra-abdominal drainage following pancreatic resection: does a superior drainage system exist? A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg 45(9):2895–2910. 10.1007/s00268-021-06158-534046692 10.1007/s00268-021-06158-5
15. Callery MP Pratt WB Kent TS Chaikof EL Vollmer CM Jr A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy J Am Coll Surg 2013 216 1 1 14 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.09.002 23122535
Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, Chaikof EL, Vollmer CM Jr (2013) A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216(1):1–14. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.09.00223122535 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.09.002
16. Trudeau MT Casciani F Ecker BL Maggino L Seykora TF Puri P McMillan MT Miller B Pratt WB Asbun HJ Ball CG Bassi C Behrman SW Berger AC Bloomston MP Callery MP Castillo CF Christein JD Dillhoff ME Dickson EJ Dixon E Fisher WE House MG Hughes SJ Kent TS Malleo G Salem RR Wolfgang CL Zureikat AH Vollmer CM on the behalf of the Pancreas Fistula Study Group The fistula risk score catalog: toward precision medicine for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy Ann Surg 2022 275 2 e463 e472 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004068 32541227
Trudeau MT, Casciani F, Ecker BL, Maggino L, Seykora TF, Puri P, McMillan MT, Miller B, Pratt WB, Asbun HJ, Ball CG, Bassi C, Behrman SW, Berger AC, Bloomston MP, Callery MP, Castillo CF, Christein JD, Dillhoff ME, Dickson EJ, Dixon E, Fisher WE, House MG, Hughes SJ, Kent TS, Malleo G, Salem RR, Wolfgang CL, Zureikat AH, Vollmer CM, on the behalf of the Pancreas Fistula Study Group (2022) The fistula risk score catalog: toward precision medicine for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 275(2):e463–e47232541227 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004068
17. Tong A Sainsbury P Craig J Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups Int J Qual Health Care 2007 19 6 349 357 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 17872937
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 19(6):349–357. 10.1093/intqhc/mzm04217872937 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
18 Pauker SG Kassirer JP The threshold approach to clinical decision making N Engl J Med 1980 302 1109 1117 10.1056/NEJM198005153022003 7366635
Pauker SG, Kassirer JP (1980) The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med 302:1109–11177366635 10.1056/NEJM198005153022003
19. Melloul E Lassen K Roulin D Grass F Perinel J Adham M Wellge EB Kunzler F Besselink MG Asbun H Scott MJ Dejong CHC Vrochides D Aloia T Izbicki JR Demartines N Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreatoduodenectomy: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) recommendations 2019 World J Surg 2020 44 7 2056 2084 10.1007/s00268-020-05462-w 32161987
Melloul E, Lassen K, Roulin D, Grass F, Perinel J, Adham M, Wellge EB, Kunzler F, Besselink MG, Asbun H, Scott MJ, Dejong CHC, Vrochides D, Aloia T, Izbicki JR, Demartines N (2020) Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreatoduodenectomy: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) recommendations 2019. World J Surg 44(7):2056–208432161987 10.1007/s00268-020-05462-w
20 Pergolini I Schorn S Goess R Novotny AR Ceyhan GO Friess H International Pancreatic Surgery CentersDemir IE Drain use in pancreatic surgery: Results from an international survey among experts in the field Surgery 2022 172 1 265 272 10.1016/j.surg.2021.11.023 34996604
Pergolini I, Schorn S, Goess R, Novotny AR, Ceyhan GO, Friess H, International Pancreatic Surgery Centers, Demir IE (2022) Drain use in pancreatic surgery: Results from an international survey among experts in the field. Surgery 172(1):265–27234996604 10.1016/j.surg.2021.11.023
21. Djulbegovic B Hozo I Schwartz A McMasters KM Acceptable regret in medical decision making Med Hypotheses 1999 53 3 253 259 10.1054/mehy.1998.0020 10580533
Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Schwartz A, McMasters KM (1999) Acceptable regret in medical decision making. Med Hypotheses 53(3):253–25910580533 10.1054/mehy.1998.0020
22. Cucchetti A Djulbegovic B Crippa S Hozo I Sbrancia M Tsalatsanis A Binda C Fabbri C Salvia R Falconi M Ercolani G Reg-PanC study group Regret affects the choice between neoadjuvant therapy and upfront surgery for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer Surgery 2023 173 6 1421 1427 10.1016/j.surg.2023.01.016 36932008
Cucchetti A, Djulbegovic B, Crippa S, Hozo I, Sbrancia M, Tsalatsanis A, Binda C, Fabbri C, Salvia R, Falconi M, Ercolani G, Reg-PanC study group (2023) Regret affects the choice between neoadjuvant therapy and upfront surgery for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer. Surgery 173(6):1421–142736932008 10.1016/j.surg.2023.01.016
23. Sanjay P Kellner M Tait IS The role of interventional radiology in the management of surgical complications after pancreatoduodenectomy HPB (Oxford) 2012 14 12 812 817 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2012.00545.x 23134182
Sanjay P, Kellner M, Tait IS (2012) The role of interventional radiology in the management of surgical complications after pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford) 14(12):812–81723134182 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2012.00545.x
24. Woo DH Lee JH Park YJ Lee WH Song KB Hwang DW Kim SC Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage and percutaneous catheter drainage of postoperative fluid collection after pancreaticoduodenectomy Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2022 26 4 355 362 10.14701/ahbps.22-018 36003001
Woo DH, Lee JH, Park YJ, Lee WH, Song KB, Hwang DW, Kim SC (2022) Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage and percutaneous catheter drainage of postoperative fluid collection after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 26(4):355–36236003001 10.14701/ahbps.22-018
25. Kawai M Tani M Terasawa H 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 2006 244 1 7 10.1097/01.sla.0000218077.14035.a6 16794381
Kawai M, Tani M, Terasawa H et al (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 244:1–716794381 10.1097/01.sla.0000218077.14035.a6
26. Hu Y Zhao Y-P Liao Q Relationship between the pancreatic fistulae and the bacterial culture of abdominal draining fluid after pancreatic operations Chin J Pract Surg 2008 1 53 55
Hu Y, Zhao Y-P, Liao Q et al (2008) Relationship between the pancreatic fistulae and the bacterial culture of abdominal draining fluid after pancreatic operations. Chin J Pract Surg 1:53–55
27. Marchegiani G Perri G Pulvirenti A Sereni E Azzini AM Malleo G Salvia R Bassi C Non-inferiority of open passive drains compared with closed suction drains in pancreatic surgery outcomes: a prospective observational study Surgery 2018 164 3 443 449 10.1016/j.surg.2018.04.025 29903511
Marchegiani G, Perri G, Pulvirenti A, Sereni E, Azzini AM, Malleo G, Salvia R, Bassi C (2018) Non-inferiority of open passive drains compared with closed suction drains in pancreatic surgery outcomes: a prospective observational study. Surgery 164(3):443–44929903511 10.1016/j.surg.2018.04.025
28. Chang JH Stackhouse K Dahdaleh F Hossain MS Naples R Wehrle C Augustin T Simon R Joyce D Walsh RM Naffouje S Postoperative day 1 drain amylase after pancreatoduodenectomy: optimal level to predict pancreatic fistula J Gastrointest Surg 2023 27 11 2676 2683 10.1007/s11605-023-05805-7 37653152
Chang JH, Stackhouse K, Dahdaleh F, Hossain MS, Naples R, Wehrle C, Augustin T, Simon R, Joyce D, Walsh RM, Naffouje S (2023) Postoperative day 1 drain amylase after pancreatoduodenectomy: optimal level to predict pancreatic fistula. J Gastrointest Surg 27(11):2676–268337653152 10.1007/s11605-023-05805-7
