Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple Procedure) in the Last Five Years at Prof. Dr. R. D. Kandou Hospital
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35790/ecl.v14i1.65822Keywords:
pancreatoduodenectomy; pancreatic neoplasm; Whipple procedureAbstract
Abstract: Pancreatoduodenectomy (Whipple) is the standard procedure for resectable pancreatic and periampullary neoplasms. Although techniques and postoperative care continue to evolve, this procedure is still associated with high morbidity and significant complications, such as pancreatic fistula and delayed gastric emptying. It is most commonly performed on elderly patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and requires ongoing evaluation to improve outcomes. A five-year review is necessary to assess trends, complications, and postoperative outcomes as a basis for improving the quality of surgical management. This was a retrospective descriptive analysis of adult patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy at Prof. Dr. R. D. Kandou Hospital between 2020 and 2025. The inclusion criteria were patients with complete medical records, including demographic data, surgical indications, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications. Cases with incomplete data, surgeries performed outside the study period, or patients who died before postoperative evaluation were excluded. Univariate analysis was performed using SPSS version 30 to describe clinical characteristics and patient outcomes. Of the 35 patients, the distribution of gender and diagnosis (icteric vs. non-icteric obstruction) was relatively balanced. Most underwent a single Whipple procedure (65.7%) using the duct-to-mucosa anastomosis technique (80%). Postoperative complications occurred in 57.1% of patients, and 30-day mortality was 34.3%. The mean age of patients was 55.6 years, the duration of surgery was 370 minutes, the blood loss was 568 cc, and the length of hospital stay was 9.8 days. In conclusion, the Whipple procedure demonstrates variable outcomes with high morbidity and a 30-day mortality rate of 34.3%. End-to-side anastomosis is the most commonly used technique. Age, case complexity, and operative variability influence patient recovery and prognosis.
Keywords: pancreatoduodenectomy; pancreatic neoplasm
References
1. Shanmugam S, Pravenkumar RR. Outcomes of Whipple procedure/pancreaticoduodenectomy- an eighteen-year experience at a tertiary cancer care centre in south India. Int J Res Med Sci. 2024;12(2):482-6. Doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20240215
2. Breaza GM, Hut FE, Cretu O, Awwad SAA, Awwad AA, Sima LV, Dan RG, et al. Correlation Between systemic inflammation, gut microbiome dysbiosis and postoperative complications after the modified Whipple procedure. Biomedicines. 2025;13(1):104. Doi:10.3390/biomedicines13010104
3. Omara MS, Abdelrahim EY, Doush WM. Management modalities of pancreatic cancer and surgical outcomes of Braun’s anastomosis addition in Whipple’s procedure: a single-center prospective study. Al-Kindy Coll Med J. 2024;20(1):20-6. Doi:10.47723/pv43zh36
4. Muhammedoğlu B, Ay OF. Endoscopic clipping of gastrojejunostomy leakage following Whipple procedure: a case report. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2024 Sep 27;16(9):3041–7. Doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v16.i9.3041
5. Patil S, Chamberlain RS. Long term survival outcomes in octogenarians and nonagenarians undergoing the Whipple procedure for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a United States population-based study (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results [SEER] Database, 1998-2011). J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221(4):e130-e131. Doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.08.249
6. Howbora N, Thota RS, Pargunde S, Patil V, Agarwal V, Bhandare M, et al. Utility of surgical Apgar score in predicting post-operative complications after Whipple procedure in pancreatic cancer patients. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2024. 2025;16(4):819-26. Doi:10.1007/s13193-024-02151-1
7. Russell T, Labib P, Aroori S. ThTP1.9 The impact of patient gender on key outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy: should gender influence patient selection? Br J Surg. 2023;110(Suppl 6). doi:10.1093/bjs/znad241.248
8. King LM. Web MD Hypothalamus: What does it do? Published online 2021. Available from https://www.webmd.com/brain/what-to-know-about-hypothalamus
9. Muhammedoglu B, Tolan H, Topuz S, Kokdas S. Whipple’s procedure and retrocolic gastroenteric anastomosis. Ann Med Res. 2019;26(3):298-303 Doi: 10.5455/annalsmedres.2018.09.210
10. Bell Jr. RH. Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Whipple procedure. Northwest Handb Surg Proced. Published online 2020;70-3. Doi:10.1201/b17659-31
11. Sharma D, Mallik S, Kalita H. The ‘Assam’ technique: a simple, reproducible and leak proof technique of pancreaticojejunostomy after Whipple’s procedure. Int Surg J. 2022;9(10):1710. Doi:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20222594
12. Rehman S, Umer A, Kuncewitch M, Molmenti E. Whipple procedure: pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy: a literature review. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2016;28(1):179-82. Available from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27323589/
13. Kumar V. IDDF2018-ABS-0212 Pancreaticojejunostomy with intraoperative pancreatic stenting in Whipple’s procedure – a single institute experience. Gut. 2018;67(Suppl 2):A1-A11. Doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2018-iddfabstracts.157
14. Hakakian D, Bellaire AJ, Elsawwah JK, Harrison LE, Rolandelli RH, Nemeth ZH. Risk factors and surgical outcomes of older adult patients undergoing a Whipple procedure. South Med J. 2025;118(3):184-8. Doi:10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001800
15. Nguyen TL, Do HD. Effectiveness of prognostic nutrition index in predicting outcomes after Whipple procedure in pancreactic head cancer. Trang chủ. 2024;14(3):1-6. Doi: https://10.51199/vjsel.2024.3.3
16. Bouchagier K, Mulita F, Verras GI, Nehr S, Perdikiaris I, Tasios K, et al. Association between perineural infiltrations and delayed gastric emptying after Whipple procedure for periampullary tumours, and the relationship with other clinicopathological factors and overall survival. Prz Gastroenterol. 2024;19(1):89-96. Doi:10.5114/pg.2023.129464
17. Fakhir M, Mardan I, Dawood A. Perioperative risk factors & outcome after pancreatico-duodenectomy (Whipple procedure). Iraqi Natl J Med. 2022;4(1):71-9. Doi:10.37319/iqnjm.4.1.8
18. Udhayachandhar R, Otokwala J, Korula P, Rymbai M, Chandy T, Joseph P. Perioperative factors impacting intensive care outcomes following Whipple procedure: A retrospective study. Indian J Anaesth. 2020;64(3):216-21. Doi:10.4103/ija.IJA_727_19
19. Siddique H. Whipple procedure vs. distal pancreatectomy: a study on the efficacy, survival rates, and complication rates in patients with pancreatic cancer. Cureus. 2025;17(3):e81091. Doi: 10.7759/cureus.8109
20. Fathi F, Zare M, Ahmadi A, Kazemzadeh K. Pathologic findings of Whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy: a 5-year review on 51 cases at Taleghani general hospital. Gastroenterol Hepatol from Bed to Bench. 2012;5(4):179-82. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4017468/
21. Bannon SA, Bannon JL, Campbell J, Parks RW, Garden OJ, Dempsey DT, et al. The role of surgery for pancreatic cancer: a 12-year review of patient outcome. Ulster Med J. 2010;79(2):70-75. Available from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21116422/
22. Dapri G, Bascombe N, Montorsi M. Three trocars laparoscopic Whipple’s procedure with completely intracorporeal handsewn anastomoses—case report. J Vis Surg. 2020;6:31. Doi:10.21037/jovs.2019.12.09
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Michael Tendean, Ferdinand Tjandra, Toar Mambu, Marven Ayawaila, Eric Sihaloho
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
COPYRIGHT
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors hold their copyright and grant this journal the privilege of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that permits others to impart the work with an acknowledgment of the work's origin and initial publication by this journal.
Authors can enter into separate or additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (for example, post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its underlying publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (for example, in institutional repositories or on their website) as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
