ArticleGland surgery2025
Gastrointestinal perforation caused by a pancreaticojejunal anastomotic stent: a postoperative case report following pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Article in Gland surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Placement of a support tube during pancreaticojejunal anastomosis has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula in patients with a non-dilated pancreatic duct. However, increasing reports of long-term complications, such as the presence of an indwelling support tube in the anastomosis, have raised concerns. Despite this, short-term complications, such as gastrointestinal perforation in the absence of tube displacement, remain relatively rare. Case Description: This report describes a 59-year-old female patient who underwent radical pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (T2N0M0). On the 8th postoperative day, she developed back pain, followed by a sudden increase in body temperature, elevated inflammatory markers, and a significant increase in amylase levels in the drainage fluid. Enhanced abdominal computed tomography revealed that one side of the pancreatic duct support tube had penetrated the abdominal cavity, resulting in posterior peritoneal effusion. Emergency removal of the support tube and repair of the intestinal perforation were performed. The patient had an uneventful recovery after surgery and was discharged on day 20 following the second operation. Conclusions: In cases of postoperative abdominal or low back pain accompanied by signs of infection, complications related to the support tube should be considered. Further studies are needed to evaluate the necessity of placing a pancreatic duct support tube, as well as the timing for its removal after the completion of the anastomosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.