Two forms of one complication
Authors: Feng Feng , Cao Xuehui , Liu Xueqing , Qin Jianzhang , Xing Zhongqiang , Duan Jiayue , Liu Chen , Liu Jianhua 
Published: July 2019

Abstract
Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) remains a rare but lethal complication following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in the modern era of advanced surgical techniques. The main reason for early PPH (within 24 hours following surgery) has been found to be a failure of hemostasis during the surgical procedure. The reasons for late PPH tend to be variate. Positive associations have been identified between late PPH and intraabdominal erosive factors such as postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, gastrointestinal fistula, and intraabdominal infection. Still, some patients suffer PPH who do not have these erosive factors. The severity of bleeding and clinical prognosis of erosive and nonerosive PPH following LPD is different.
We analyzed the electronic clinical records of 33 consecutive patients undergoing LPD and experiencing one or more episodes of hemorrhage after postoperative day 1 in this study. All patients received an LPD with standard lymphadenectomy. The patient's hemorrhage-related information was extracted, such as interval from surgery to bleeding, presentation, bleeding site, severity, management, and clinical prognosis. Based on our clinical practice, we proposed a treatment strategy for these 2 forms of late PPH following LPD.
Of these 33 patients, 8 patients (24.24%) developed nonerosive bleeding, and other 25 patients (75.76%) suffered from postoperative hemorrhage caused by various intraabdominal erosive factors. The median interval from the LPD surgery to postoperative hemorrhage for both groups was 11 days, and no significant differences were found (P = .387). For patients with erosive bleeding, most (60%) underwent their episodes of bleeding on postoperative days 5 to 14. For patients with nonerosive bleeding, most (75%) began postoperative hemorrhage 2 weeks after surgery, and 50% of these patients had bleeding between postoperative days 20 and 30. In the present study, 64% (16/25) of patients with erosive bleeding and 87.5% (7/8) of patients with nonerosive bleeding had internal bleeding. The fact that 90% (9/10) of all gastrointestinal bleeding patients had intraabdominal erosive factors indicated strong relationships between gastrointestinal hemorrhage and these erosive factors. The bleeding sites were detected in most patients, except for 4 patients who received conservative treatments. For patients with erosive bleeding, the most common bleeding site detected was the pancreatic remnant (43.48%); others included the hepatic artery (39.13%), splenic artery (13.04%), and left gastric artery (4.35%). For patients with nonerosive bleeding, the most common bleeding site was the hepatic artery (83.33%), and the 2nd most frequent site was the splenic artery (16.67%). No hemorrhage from pancreaticojejunal anastomosis occurred in the patients with nonerosive bleeding. Statistical significance was noted between these 2 groups in hemorrhage severity (P = .012), management strategies (P = .001), rebleeding occurrence (P = .031), and prognosis outcome (P = .010). The patients with intraabdominal erosive factors tended to have a higher risk of grade C bleeding (68.00%) than that of their nonerosive bleeding counterparts (12.50%). As for treatment strategy for postoperative bleeding, the favorable method to manage nonerosive bleeding was conservative and endovascular treatments if the patients’ hemodynamics was stable. All these nonerosive bleeding patients survived. On the contrary, 22 patients (88.00%) in the erosive bleeding group had a 2nd surgical procedure, and the mortality was 56.00%. In this group, 2 patients received conservative therapy due to the demand of their family and expired. One patient underwent endovascular treatment and had another episode of hemorrhage, finally dying from multi-organ failure. No patients in the nonerosive bleeding group suffered from rebleeding after complete hemostasis, and 44.00% of patients with erosive bleeding underwent a 2nd episode of postoperative bleeding.
Erosive and nonerosive PPH are 2 forms of this lethal complication following LPD. Their severity of bleeding, rebleeding rate, and treatment strategy are different. Patients with erosive factors tend to have a higher incidence of grade C bleeding, rebleeding, and mortality. Factors influencing treatment protocols for PPH include the existence of intraabdominal erosive factors, patient hemodynamics, possibility to detect the bleeding site during endovascular treatment, and surgeon's preference. The performance of endovascular treatment with stent repair for managing postoperative hemorrhage after LPD depends on the discovery of the bleeding site. Surgery should be reserved as an emergent and final choice to manage PPH.