Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact Login    Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Users Online: 214 

EDITORIAL Table of Contents   
Year : 2010  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 65
Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy

Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication23-Mar-2010

How to cite this article:
Nikfarjam M. Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2010;16:65

How to cite this URL:
Nikfarjam M. Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. Saudi J Gastroenterol [serial online] 2010 [cited 2021 May 13];16:65. Available from:

Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) was first popularized by Traverso and Longmire in 1978. [1] Proponents of this technique believe that it decreases the incidence of post-gastrectomy complications with overall improvements in long-term gastrointestinal function, when compared to classic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy was initially advocated as an alternative to PD in the setting of chronic pancreatitis, and later utilized for treatment of peri-ampullary malignancy. Although the technique is widely adopted, pylorus preservation in the setting of cancer, remains controversial.

Several studies and reviews have examined outcomes of PPPD compared to classic PD, particularly relating to delayed gastric empting, oncologic safety, and morbidity and mortality. [2] The major conclusions are that PPPD reduces operating time, results in lower blood loss and reduces the need for blood transfusions, with no overall increases in perioperative morbidity or mortality, tumor recurrence or long-term survival. There is however no overall consensus that PPPD is a better technique than classic PD.

Some argue that PPPD increases postoperative morbidity. Warshaw et al. were the first to associate delayed gastric emptying with PPPD. [3] One randomized trial of 33 patients had 43% delayed gastric emptying after PPPD compared to zero cases after classic PD resection ( p0 < 0.05). [4]

The reverse has however also been shown in a randomized trial of PPPD versus radical PD, including antrectomy and extended lymph node dissection showing a 6% delayed gastric emptying rate compared to 16% ( p0 = 0.006). [5] Many series indicate no difference in delayed gastric emptying between PPPD and standard PD. [6],[7] Based on reviews and meta-analysis there does appear to be at least a trend towards increased delayed gastric emptying associated with PPPD.

Although the oncologic adequacy of PPPD has been a topic of concern, there has been no study that shows reduced mortality or early tumor recurrence following PPPD compared to PD. [2],[8] Classic PD must however be considered the operation of choice in cases where there is tumor involvement of the first part of the duodenum or distal stomach. Some also advocate complete removal of the duodenum in cases of periampullary malignancy associated with hereditary syndromes such as familial polyposis coli. In such cases there is increased risk of malignant transformation within any duodenal remnant, due to a genetic field change throughout the duodenum.

The results of reviews and meta-analysis of studies on PPPD need to be interpreted with caution. A clear superiority of one technique over another has not been demonstrated. Trials so far suffer from relevant clinical heterogeneity, small sample size, and a lack of clearly defined outcome definitions. Reviews such as the one presented in this edition of the journal [9] reinforce the need for well-designed, multicenter, international trials, to clearly determine if there is a difference in mortality, morbidity and long-survival between PPPD and classic PD. What can be determined from studies so far, is that there are no obvious clinically relevant differences between the techniques, but PPPD appears somewhat faster and causes less blood loss compared to classic PD.

   References Top

1.Traverso LW, Longmire WP Jr. Preservation of the pylorus in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1978;146:959-62.  Back to cited text no. 1      
2.Diener MK, Heukaufer C, Schwarzer G, Seiler CM, Antes G, Buchler MW, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) versus pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;16:CD006053.  Back to cited text no. 2      
3.Warshaw AL, Torchiana DL. Delayed gastric emptying after pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1985;160:1-4.  Back to cited text no. 3      
4.Lin PW, Shan YS, Lin YJ, Hung CJ. Pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer: PPPD versus whipple procedure. Hepatogastroenterology 2005;52:1601-4.  Back to cited text no. 4      
5.Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD, Sohn TA, Campbell KA, Sauter PK, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without distal gastrectomy and extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma, part 2: Randomized controlled trial evaluating survival, morbidity, and mortality. Ann Surg 2002;236:355-66.  Back to cited text no. 5      
6.Paraskevas KI, Avgerinos C, Manes C, Lytras D, Dervenis C. Delayed gastric emptying is associated with pylorus-preserving but not classical whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy: a review of the literature and critical reappraisal of the implicated pathomechanism. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:5951-8.  Back to cited text no. 6      
7.Nikfarjam M, Kimchi ET, Gusani NJ, Shah SM, Sehmbey M, Shereef S, et al. A reduction in delayed gastric emptying by classic pancreaticoduodenectomy with an antecolic gastrojejunal anastomosis and a retrogastric omental patch. J Gastrointest Surg 2009;13:1674-82.  Back to cited text no. 7      
8.Karanicolas PJ, Davies E, Kunz R, Briel M, Koka HP, Payne DM, et al. The pylorus: Take it or leave it? Systematic review and meta-analysis of pylorus-preserving versus standard whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:1825-34.  Back to cited text no. 8      
9.Alsaif F. Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy for peri- ampullary carcinoma, is it a good option?. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2010;16:75-8.  Back to cited text no. 9      

Correspondence Address:
Mehrdad Nikfarjam
Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Austin Hospital, Studley Rd, Melbourne, Victoria 3084
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/1319-3767.61229

Rights and Permissions

This article has been cited by
1 The Developments and Achievements of Endoscopic Surgery, Robotic Surgery and Function-preserving Surgery
M. Yoshida,T. Furukawa,Y. Morikawa,Y. Kitagawa,M. Kitajima
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2010; 40(9): 863
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 The developments and achievements of endoscopic surgery, robotic surgery and function-preserving surgery
Yoshida, M., Furukawa, T., Morikawa, Y., Kitagawa, Y., Kitajima, M.
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2010; 40(9): 863-869


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded812    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal