Skip to main content
Download PDF

Wrapping gastroduodenal artery stump with the teres hepatis ligament to prevent postpancreatectomy hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy

World Journal of Surgical Oncology volume 21, Article number: 370 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Gastroduodenal artery (GDA) stump erosion hemorrhage is a fatal complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study aimed to determine whether GDA stump wrapping with the teres hepatis ligament during pancreaticoduodenectomy decreased the incidence of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH).

Methods

We reviewed 307 patients who had undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy between March 2019 and June 2022. The patients were divided into two groups according to application of GDA stump wrapping with the teres hepatis ligament: GDA wrapping group (165 patients) and no-wrapping group (142 patients). The perioperative data were compared between the groups.

Results

The clinical characteristics were balanced between the two groups. Grades B and C PPH and GDA-stump-related hemorrhage were significantly reduced in the GDA wrapping group compared with the no-wrapping group (PPH B/C, 13.4% vs 6.1%, P = 0.029; GDA hemorrhage, 5.6% vs 0.6%, P = 0.014). No difference was observed in the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, biliary leak, intra-abdominal abscess, delayed gastric emptying, 90-day mortality, and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups.

Conclusion

Wrapping GDA stump with the teres hepatis ligament reduced the incidence of GDA-stump-related PPH. Therefore, the wrapping technique is a simple and effective strategy to prevent PPH. Prospective studies are needed to confirm the benefit of this procedure.

Introduction

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a standard surgical procedure for pancreatic head and periampullary carcinomas. This procedure is associated with high morbidity and mortality [1, 2] Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) are the two major complications. Although POPF is not a direct cause of death, PPH can be fatal. PPH rate after PD occurs in 3–16% of patients, and the gastroduodenal artery (GDA) stump is a frequent site of bleeding [3,4,5,6,7]. Possible pathophysiological explanations for GDA-stump-related PPH include erosion and pseudoaneurysm formation of the GDA stump by pancreatic juice or local infection secondary to POPF [8].

Several methods have been developed to prevent POPF and GDA-stump-related PPH. Wrapping pancreatoenteric anastomosis or skeletal vessels with omental flaps or ligaments is one of the procedures to protect the surrounding organs against pancreatic juice [9,10,11,12]. However, previous studies have shown that this surgical technique may not reduce the incidence of POPF [13]. The protective effect of the vessel wrapping procedure against GDA-stump-related PPH is under debate [14]. Therefore, we performed this study to evaluate whether GDA wrapping using the teres hepatis ligament helped to prevent PPH after PD.

Materials and methods

Patients

Between March 2019 and June 2022, the medical records of patients who underwent PD at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University and Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University were reviewed for eligibility. The exclusion criteria were no teres hepatis ligament available to create a wrapping or no creation of a pancreaticoenterostomy. Patients were divided into two groups depending on whether they had wrapping of the GDA stump by the teres hepatis ligament. It is each surgeon’s preference to or not to do the wrapping. All clinical, biochemical, and radiological data were retrospectively collected from the database. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University (No: 2023–0667). All patients provided written informed consent before inclusion.

Perioperative morbidity

Perioperative morbidity included PPH, POPF, biliary leak, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, pneumonia, and heart failure. PPH, POPF, and delayed gastric emptying were defined and graded according to the international consensus definitions of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) [3, 15, 16].

GDA stump wrapping procedure

Division of the GDA was routinely performed using 4–0 polypropylene sutures or two hem-o-lok clips. After the completion of PD, the teres hepatis ligament was mobilized after division of the falciform ligament close to the umbilicus. The teres hepatis ligament was separated from the liver parenchyma to ensure achievement of a ligament length of 10–15 cm. The blood supply and fat near the ligament were preserved. The prepared pedicled teres hepatis ligament was placed below the divided GDA stump and wrapped around it in a tension-free manner (Fig. 1A–C). Postoperative contrast-enhanced computed tomography was routinely performed to confirm that the GDA stump was completely covered by the teres hepatis ligament (Fig. 1D).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The prepared pedicled teres hepatis ligament was wrapped around the divided GDA stump. A The prepared pedicled teres hepatis ligament was placed below the GDA stump. B The teres hepatis ligament was used to wrap the GDA stump. C The GDA stump was completely covered by the teres hepatis ligament. D Postoperative enhanced computed tomography scan showed the wrapped GDA stump (arrow) was fully covered by the teres hepatis ligament (fat density)

Full size image

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation, and between-group differences were compared using Student’s t-test. Categorical variables were compared using Pearson’s χ2-test or Fisher’s exact test. Two-tailed P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0 software.

Results

Patient characteristics

Between March 2019 and June 2022, 307 patients who underwent PD were categorized into two groups: 142 without (no-wrapping group) and 165 with (GDA wrapping group) wrapping of GDA stumps (Table 1). The median age of the total cohort was 64.0 (interquartile range 57.0–71.0) years. The main primary diseases were pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (61.2%) and periampullary carcinoma (28.3%). Preoperative biliary drainage was performed in 84 (27.4%) patients, and 65 (21.2%) underwent neoadjuvant treatment prior to surgery. Both open (30.7%) and minimally invasive (69.3%) PD were included in this study. The two groups were well balanced regarding demographics, health status, and disease characteristics.

Table 1 Patient characteristics
Full size table

Perioperative characteristics

The perioperative characteristics are listed in Table 2. The operating time did not differ significantly between the GDA wrapping (364 ± 113 min) and no-wrapping (368 ± 106 min) groups. The mean tumor size was 2.62 ± 1.34 cm. A combined portal vein/superior mesenteric vein resection was performed in 27 patients (8.8%). The diameter of the Wirsung duct was ≤ 3 mm in 218 (71.0%) patients, and the pancreatic parenchyma had soft texture in 192 (62.5%) patients. All pancreaticoenterostomies were performed with the jejunum, and 317 (94.3%) patients underwent pancreaticoenterostomy via a duct-to-mucosal anastomosis. There were no significant differences between the two groups for any of the perioperative characteristics.

Table 2 Perioperative characteristics
Full size table

Postoperative morbidity

The postoperative complications are listed in Table 3. Clinically relevant PPH, defined according to the ISGPS criteria, was identified in 19 (13.4%) patients in the no-wrapping group and 10 (6.1%) in the GDA wrapping group (P = 0.029). Eight patients (5.6%) developed GDA-stump-related PPH in the no-wrapping group, compared with only one patient (0.6%) in the GDA wrapping group (P = 0.014). The anatomical location of the main sites of bleeding in patients with clinically relevant PPH is listed in Table 4. Fourteen patients (73.7%) with grade B/C PPH in the no-wrapping group and five (50.0%) in the GDA wrapping group experienced hemorrhage from an artery. The most frequent anatomical sites of PPH included the GDA stump, proper hepatic artery, common hepatic artery, and gastrojejunostomy. Clinically relevant POPF was seen in 19 (13.4%) patients in the no-wrapping group and 26 (15.8%) patients in the GDA wrapping group (P = 0.557). Other complications included biliary leak, delayed gastric emptying, intra-abdominal abscess, pneumonia, and heart failure, and these did not differ significantly between the two groups. No differences were observed in 90-day reoperation and mortality between the two groups. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 28.0 ± 10.6 and 30.2 ± 17.3 days in the no-wrapping and GDA wrapping groups, respectively (P = 0.174).

Table 3 Postoperative morbidity
Full size table
Table 4 Anatomical location of main bleeding in patients with grade B/C PPH
Full size table

Discussion

PPH remains one of the major complications after PD. However, it carries a high mortality of ~ 20% [6, 24]. PPH is differentiated by the ISGPS into early (≤ 24 h after the end of the index operation) and late (> 24 h) based on the time of onset [3]. Early PPH mainly occurs after technical failure of appropriate hemostasis during the operation, while late PPH usually occurs several days or even weeks after the operation and is usually related to surgical complications. The majority of late PPH arises from an eroded or ruptured splanchnic artery secondary to POPF and/or intra-abdominal infection, and the GDA stump is one of the most frequent sources of late PPH [25,26,27,28]. In this study, the GDA stump accounted for 42% (8/19) of the PPH in the no-wrapping group, which agrees with previous studies [29, 30]. Thus, prevention of POPF and GDA-stump-related PPH is major concerns in PD.

The wrapping technique using the omental flap and ligament was developed to protect the skeletonized vessels and pancreatic enteric anastomosis [10,11,12, 31,32,33]. Wrapping the omental flap and ligament around the pancreatic anastomosis was a method to reinforce the pancreaticojejunostomy, as the omentum and ligament provided a source of granulation tissue and neovascularization to promote healing [14, 17, 18, 21, 34]. Others chose to protect the exposed major blood vessels from pancreatic juice digestion by wrapping them with the omental flap and ligament, as they believed that pancreatic leak could not be avoided completely, but vessel erosion hemorrhage was life-threatening. Several studies have shown that the wrapping does not markedly decrease the incidence of POPF but protects the splanchnic vessels from erosion hemorrhage [19, 22, 23, 35, 36]. However, other studies have shown different conclusions [13, 37]. A retrospective study of the Japanese Society of Pancreatic Surgery indicated that using omental flap or falciform ligament neither decreased the occurrence of POPF nor PPH after PD [13]. To date, no consensus has been reached on these methods to reduce the incidence of POPF and PPH (Table 5).

Table 5 Studies (cases ≥ 50) comparing PD with and without wrapping in the English language literature
Full size table

The wrapping technique was simple to perform either in open or minimally invasive surgery. The wrapping procedure to mobilize the teres hepatis ligament and wrap the GDA stump took an average of 5–10 min; thus, this step did not overly prolong operating time (Table 2). The common wrapping materials included omental flap, falciform ligament, and teres hepatis ligament. We chose to wrap the GDA stump with the teres hepatis ligament rather than the omental flap or falciform ligament for the following reasons. Firstly, the location of the teres hepatis ligament in the porta hepatis made it easy to divide and harvest in open or laparoscopic surgery. Secondly, the structure of the teres hepatis ligament covered by peritoneum was thicker and stronger than the omentum or falciform ligament. Thirdly, wrapping associated complications, like panniculitis, intra-abdominal infection, intestinal obstruction, and flap necrosis, have been reported in previous studies with omental flap [10, 11].

In the present study, we included a no-wrapping group as a control. The overall incidence of grade B/C PPH and clinically relevant POPF in the control group was 13.4% and 13.4%, respectively, which corresponded with previous studies in high-volume centers [22, 23]. The overall incidence of grade B/C PPH and clinically relevant POPF was 6.1% and 15.8% in the wrapping group, respectively. Our study revealed that the GDA stump wrapping significantly decreased the overall incidence of grade B/C PPH (13.4% vs 6.1%, P = 0.029) and GDA-stump-related hemorrhage (5.6% vs 0.6%, P = 0.014), indicating the vessel-protective effect of wrapping. However, no difference in POPF was found between the two groups, indicating that the GDA stump wrapping did not lower the incidence of POPF. Wrapping had no obvious influence on biliary leak and delayed gastric emptying, and wrapping-associated complications reported in previous studies, such as intra-abdominal infection hepatic artery stenosis, did not increase in the wrapping group compared with the no-wrapping group. Despite the high mortality rate in cases of PPH, the lower rate of PPH in the wrapping group did not translate into a significantly lower mortality rate (2.8% vs 1.2%, P = 0.421). This might have been due to the overall low rate of GDA-stump-related PPH. The application of interventional angiography and transcatheter arterial embolization for arterial hemorrhage also rescued most of the PPH. Eighty percent of the patients (4/5) in the wrapping group and 71.4% (10/14) in the no-wrapping group had successful hemostasis by transcatheter arterial embolization (data not shown). Thus, the mortality caused by PPH was too low to affect the statistical results.

This was a multicenter retrospective study with a small sample size, which may have led to selection bias. Therefore, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to verify the benefits of this technique in PD.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study showed that wrapping the GDA stump with the teres hepatis ligamentum decreased the incidence of GDA-stump-related hemorrhage and grade B/C PPH. Such a wrapping procedure, which is simple to perform in open or minimally invasive surgery, without increasing the operating time and other complications, can protect the GDA stump from pancreatic juice and prevent hemorrhage.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

GDA:

Gastroduodenal artery

PPH:

Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage

PD:

Pancreaticoduodenectomy

POPF:

Postoperative pancreatic fistula

ISGPS:

International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery

References

  1. Simon R. Complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Clin North Am. 2021;101:865–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kokkinakis S, Kritsotakis EI, Maliotis N, Karageorgiou I, Chrysos E, Lasithiotakis K. Complications of modern pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int HBPD INT. 2022;21:527–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH)–an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery. 2007;142:20–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Choi SH, Moon HJ, Heo JS, Joh JW, Kim YI. Delayed hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;199:186–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Blanc T, Cortes A, Goere D, Sibert A, Pessaux P, Belghiti J, et al. Hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy: when is surgery still indicated? Am J Surg. 2007;194:3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Floortje van Oosten A, Smits FJ, van den Heuvel DAF, van Santvoort HC, Molenaar IQ. Diagnosis and management of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB. 2019;21:953–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Asari S, Matsumoto I, Toyama H, Yamaguchi M, Okada T, Shinzeki M, et al. Recommendation of treatment strategy for postpancreatectomy hemorrhage: lessons from a single-center experience in 35 patients. Pancreatol Off J Int Assoc Pancreatol IAP Al. 2016;16:454–63.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Han GJ, Kim S, Lee NK, Kim CW, Seo HI, Kim HS, et al. Prediction of late postoperative hemorrhage after Whipple procedure using computed tomography performed during early postoperative period. Korean J Radiol. 2018;19:284–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Baskaran V, Banerjee JK, Ghosh SR, Kumar SS, Anand S, Menon G, et al. Applications of hepatic round ligament/falciform ligament flap and graft in abdominal surgery—a review of their utility and efficacy. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021;406:1249–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Abe N, Sugiyama M, Suzuki Y, Yanagida O, Masaki T, Mori T, et al. Falciform ligament in pancreatoduodenectomy for protection of skeletonized and divided vessels. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2009;16:184–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Maeda A, Ebata T, Kanemoto H, Matsunaga K, Bando E, Yamaguchi S, et al. Omental flap in pancreaticoduodenectomy for protection of splanchnic vessels. World J Surg. 2005;29:1122–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Müssle B, Wierick A, Distler M, Weitz J, Welsch T. Falciform ligament wrap for prevention of gastroduodenal artery bleed after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Surg Res. 2017;207:215–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tani M, Kawai M, Hirono S, Hatori T, Imaizumi T, Nakao A, et al. Use of omentum or falciform ligament does not decrease complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: nationwide survey of the Japanese Society of Pancreatic Surgery. Surgery. 2012;151:183–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Andreasi V, Partelli S, Crippa S, Balzano G, Tamburrino D, Muffatti F, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the role of omental or falciform ligament wrapping during pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB. 2020;22:1227–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery. 2017;161:584–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR, et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2007;142:761–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosso E, Lopez P, Roedlisch MN, Narita M, Oussoultzoglou E, Bachellier P. Double omental flap reduced perianastomotic collections and relaparotomy rates after pancreaticoduodenectomy with pancreaticogastrostomy. World J Surg. 2012;36:1672–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Choi SB, Lee JS, Kim WB, Song TJ, Suh SO, Choi SY. Efficacy of the omental roll-up technique in pancreaticojejunostomy as a strategy to prevent pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Arch Surg Chic Ill. 1960;2012(147):145–50.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Xu C, Yang X, Luo X, Shen F, Wu M, Tan W, et al. “Wrapping the gastroduodenal artery stump” during pancreatoduodenectomy reduced the stump hemorrhage incidence after operation. Chin J Cancer Res Chung-Kuo Yen Cheng Yen Chiu. 2014;26:299–308.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kapoor VK, Gupta N, Behari A, Sharma S, Kumar A II, Prakash A, et al. Omental flap to protect gastro-duodenal artery stump from pancreatic anastomotic leak in pancreato-duodenectomy. JOP. 2016;17:289–93.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tangtawee P, Mingphruedhi S, Rungsakulkij N, Suragul W, Vassanasiri W, Muangkaew P. Prospective randomized controlled trial of omental roll-up technique on pancreatojejunostomy anastomosis for reducing perioperative complication in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Sci. 2021;28:450–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Meng L, Cai H, Cai Y, Li Y, Peng B. Wrapping the stump of the gastroduodenal artery using the ligamentum teres hepatis during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a center’s preliminary experience. BMC Surg. 2021;21:70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Welsch T, Müssle B, Korn S, Sturm D, Bork U, Distler M, et al. Pancreatoduodenectomy with or without prophylactic falciform ligament wrap around the hepatic artery for prevention of postpancreatectomy haemorrhage: randomized clinical trial (PANDA trial). Br J Surg. 2021;109:37–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yekebas EF, Wolfram L, Cataldegirmen G, Habermann CR, Bogoevski D, Koenig AM, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage: diagnosis and treatment: an analysis in 1669 consecutive pancreatic resections. Ann Surg. 2007;246:269–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Kasumova GG, Eskander MF, Kent TS, Ng SC, Moser AJ, Ahmed M, et al. Hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy: does timing matter? HPB. 2016;18:861–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ching KC, Santos E, McCluskey KM, Orons PD, Bandi R, Friend CJ, et al. Covered stents and coil embolization for treatment of postpancreatectomy arterial hemorrhage. J Vasc Interv Radiol JVIR. 2016;27:73–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. de Castro SMM, Kuhlmann KFD, Busch ORC, van Delden OM, Laméris JS, van Gulik TM, et al. Delayed massive hemorrhage after pancreatic and biliary surgery: embolization or surgery? Ann Surg. 2005;241:85–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Correa-Gallego C, Brennan MF, D’Angelica MI, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, Kingham TP, et al. Contemporary experience with postpancreatectomy hemorrhage: results of 1,122 patients resected between 2006 and 2011. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:616–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tani M, Kawai M, Yamaue H. Intraabdominal hemorrhage after a pancreatectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2008;15:257–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Farvacque G, Guilbaud T, Loundou AD, Scemamma U, Berdah SV, Moutardier V, et al. Delayed post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage and bleeding recurrence after percutaneous endovascular treatment: risk factors from a bi-centric study of 307 consecutive patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021;406:1893–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ray S, Sanyal S, G S, hatak, Sonar PK, Das S, Khamrui S, et al. Falciform ligament flap for the protection of the gastroduodenal artery stump after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single center experience. J Visc Surg. 2016;153:9–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Shah OJ, Bangri SA, Singh M, Lattoo RA, Bhat MY. Omental flaps reduces complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int HBPD INT. 2015;14:313–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Müssle B, Zühlke L, Wierick A, Sturm D, Grählert X, Distler M, et al. Pancreatoduodenectomy with or without prophylactic falciform ligament wrap around the gastroduodenal artery stump for prevention of pancreatectomy hemorrhage. Trials. 2018;19:222.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Zizzo M, Ugoletti L, Morini A, Manenti A, Lococo F, Pedrazzoli C. Pancreaticojejunostomy with or without reinforcement after pancreaticoduodenectomy: surgical technique of ligamentum teres hepatis wrap around pancreaticojejunostomy. World J Surg Oncol. 2018;16:181.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Sakamoto Y, Shimada K, Esaki M, Kajiwara T, Sano T, Kosuge T. Wrapping the stump of the gastroduodenal artery using the falciform ligament during pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:334–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Abe N, Sugiyama M, Yanagida O, Masaki T, Mori T, Atomi Y. Wrapping of skeletonized and divided vessels using the falciform ligament in distal pancreatectomy. Am J Surg. 2007;194:94–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tian Y, Ma H, Peng Y, Li G, Yang H. Preventive effect of omental flap in pancreaticoduodenectomy against postoperative complications: a meta-analysis. Hepatogastroenterology. 2015;62:187–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This research is supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Sheng Yan, Grant No. 82270684).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xiang Zheng and Zedong Jiang have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China

    Xiang Zheng, Zedong Jiang, Zhenzhen Gao, Bo Zhou, Guogang Li & Sheng Yan

  2. Key Laboratory of Precision Diagnosis and Treatment for Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Tumor of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China

    Xiang Zheng, Zedong Jiang, Zhenzhen Gao, Bo Zhou, Guogang Li & Sheng Yan

  3. Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University (The First Hospital of Jiaxing), Jiaxing, China

    Xiaoping Mei

Authors
  1. Xiang Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zedong Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhenzhen Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bo Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Guogang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sheng Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xiaoping Mei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ZX, JZ, and MX collected the data and contributed to writing the manuscript. JZ, GZ, ZB and LG analyzed the data and edited the manuscript. YS and MX contributed to the study design, statistical analysis, and coordination. All authors read, commented on, and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sheng Yan or Xiaoping Mei.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University of Medicine (No.: 2023–0667). The clinical data were retrospectively registered. All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and its later amendments.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

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/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zheng, X., Jiang, Z., Gao, Z. et al. Wrapping gastroduodenal artery stump with the teres hepatis ligament to prevent postpancreatectomy hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Surg Onc 21, 370 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-023-03218-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-023-03218-z

Keywords

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

ISSN: 1477-7819

Contact us