Background A patient with unresectable periampullary malignancy found at laparotomy has traditionally received a prophylactic double bypass (biliary and duodenal), associated with considerable morbidity. With modern endoscopic treatments, surgical bypass has become questionable. This study aims to compare the two strategies. Sahlgrenska University Hospital (SU) performs a double bypass (DoB) routinely, and Skåne University Hospital Lund (SUL) secures biliary drainage endoscopically and treats only symptomatic duodenal obstruction (Wait and See, WaS). Method Between 2004 and 2013, 73 patients from SU and 70 from SUL were retrospectively identified. Demographics, tumour-related factors and postoperative outcomes during the remaining lifetime were noted. Results The DoB group had significantly more complications (67% vs. 31%, p = 0.00002) and longer hospital stay (14 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001) than the WaS-group. The two groups had similar proportion of patients in need of readmission. The DoB patients and the WaS patients with metallic biliary stents were comparable regarding their need of re-interventions and hospitalisation due to biliary obstruction. Surgical duodenal bypass did not prevent future duodenal obstructions. Conclusion Patients with unresectable periampullary malignancies can safely be managed with endoscopic drainage on demand and with lower morbidity and shorter hospital stay than with surgical prophylactic bypass.
Williamsson, C., Wennerblom, J., Tingstedt, B., & Jönsson, C. (2016). A wait-and-see strategy with subsequent self-expanding metal stent on demand is superior to prophylactic bypass surgery for unresectable periampullary cancer. HPB, 18(1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2015.08.009