Randomized clinical trial of pylorus-preserving duodenopancreatectomy versus classical Whipple resection—long term results

Abstract

Abstract Background It is not known whether pylorus-preserving duodenopancreatectomy is as effective as the classical Whipple procedure in the resection of pancreatic and periampullary tumours. A prospective randomized trial was undertaken to compare the results of the two procedures. Methods Clinical data, histological findings, short-term results, survival and quality of life of all patients having surgery for suspected pancreatic or periampullary cancer between June 1996 and September 2001 were analysed. Results Two hundred and fourteen patients were randomized to undergo either a standard or a pylorus-preserving Whipple resection. After exclusion of 84 patients on the basis of intraoperative findings, 130 patients (66 standard Whipple operation and 64 pylorus-preserving resection) were entered into the trial. Of these, 110 patients with proven adenocarcinoma (57 standard Whipple and 53 pylorus-preserving resection) were analysed for long-term survival and quality of life. There was no difference in perioperative morbidity. Long-term survival, quality of life and weight gain were identical after a median follow-up of 63·1 (range 4–93) months. At 6 months, capacity to work was better after the pylorus-preserving procedure (77 versus 56 per cent; P = 0·019). Conclusion Both procedures were equally effective for the treatment of pancreatic and periampullary cancer. Pylorus-preserving Whipple resection offers some minor advantages in the early postoperative period, but not in the long term.