The concept of zero mortality in pancreaticoduodenectomy: analysis of key success factors

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Over the past 15–20 years, pancreatic surgery centers worldwide have achieved fundamentally low in-hospital mortality rates of less than 1–3%. Several published data report near-zero mortality in key single-center series. These achievements allow us to rethink the concept of «zero mortality,» transforming it from a statistical abstraction into a tangible clinical goal, achieving the systematic development of modern surgical, anesthesiological, and organizational protocols. The concept of «zero mortality» in pancreaticoduodenectomy is achieved through the systematic organization of organizational, surgical, and functional protocols. The paradox of high frequency (up to 50%) with low mortality makes it less effective at preventing death after its onset (low failure-to-rescue rate, FTR). A key determinant of success is the centralization of operations in high-volume centers (>20 resections/year), which ensures a predictable flow of FTRs. Standardization of surgical technique, including the selection of a reproducible anastomosis method, minimization of blood loss, and a balanced assessment of resectability, reduces the risk of serious intraoperative complications. Implementation of early outcome algorithms based on a dynamic diptych of clinical and laboratory markers, with a focus on minimally invasive treatment methods (interventional radiology), improves outcomes. Rigorous multidisciplinary patient selection and growth acceleration protocols, effective even in high-risk patients, are essential elements. Systematic audit of mortality causes allows for the identification and prevention of preventive factors. Achieving the lowest possible mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy is a feasible clinical goal. It is based on individual skill and a centralized, standardized, and multidisciplinary care system focused on minimizing FTR through early diagnosis and aggressive treatment.

Full Text

INTRODUCTION

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a technically demanding surgical procedure and the standard of care for malignant neoplasms of the pancreaticoduodenal region. Historically, high rates of postoperative complications (up to 40–50%) and mortality (up to 20%) established PD’s reputation as one of the highest-risk interventions in abdominal surgery, frequently calling into question its appropriateness in the context of oncological diseases carrying an inherently unfavorable prognosis [1]. Nevertheless, over the past 15–20 years, leading pancreatic surgery centers worldwide have achieved fundamentally different results, progressively reducing in-hospital mortality rates to less than 1–3% [2, 3]. Several publications report near-zero mortality in large single-center series [4]. These achievements have enabled a conceptual reappraisal of zero mortality, transforming it from a statistical abstraction into a tangible clinical goal attainable through the systematic implementation of modern surgical, anesthesiological, and organizational protocols [5].

The relevance of investigating this concept is driven not only by its theoretical significance, but also by its direct practical implications. A comprehensive analysis of the contributing factors enables the formulation of rigorous, evidence-based recommendations for the development of effective clinical algorithms designed to optimize PD outcomes across institutions of varying complexity [2, 3].

It is important to emphasize that the achievement of zero mortality in PD is neither coincidental nor solely the product of individual surgical expertise. It is the result of a comprehensive reorganization of the entire care process, the cardinal elements of which are: centralization of procedures in high-volume specialized centers (performing >20–50 PDs per year), the functioning of multidisciplinary teams, strict standardization of surgical technique, and systematic implementation of ERAS protocols [6–8].

Despite the growing body of literature addressing individual aspects of PD outcome improvement, a deficit persists in the contemporary scientific literature with respect to comprehensive review articles that systematize and quantify the relative contribution of each key factor to the achievement of minimal mortality rates. The identification and analysis of these determinants of success—from organizational to strictly technical—represents a relevant and pressing research agenda. This review undertakes an analysis of the key factors underlying the zero-mortality concept in PD through synthesis and structured evaluation of the accumulated global clinical experience.

THE PARADOX OF COMPLICATION RATE AND MORTALITY

Contemporary data demonstrate a paradoxical relationship between complication rates and mortality following PD. Despite the fact that the postoperative complication rate remains high reaching 50% or more in-hospital mortality at leading specialized centers is consistently below 3% [2–5]. This apparent contradiction is explained by substantial advances in early complication detection, standardization of complication management, and the evolution of the multidisciplinary approach, which collectively have minimized the progression of severe complications to fatal outcomes. This phenomenon is captured in the contemporary literature by the key concept of “failure to rescue” (FTR) [9–11].

FTR is recognized as one of the central quality indicators of surgical care for major pancreatic resections [12, 13]. It reflects not so much the frequency with which serious postoperative complications arise, as the capacity of the healthcare system or of an individual institution to detect and treat those complications in a timely manner, so as to prevent a fatal outcome [13].

The FTR rate following PD varies across studies in the range of 8–21% [12, 13]. This indicator exhibits a pronounced dependence on organizational factors, including the centralization of high-complexity care in specialized centers, the functioning of multidisciplinary teams, and the availability of around-the-clock interventional radiology and intensive care services. Notably, FTR rates in high-income countries are lower than those in low- and middle-income countries, which confirms the predominance of systemic factors over purely clinical ones. [13–15].

The principal clinical risk factors for FTR include advanced age, high anesthetic risk classification, the presence of severe comorbidities, the development of specific major complications (e.g., clinically relevant pancreatic anastomotic leakage, multiorgan failure, intraabdominal hemorrhage), and the need for reoperation [16, 17]. The occurrence of multiple complications in a single patient significantly increases the risk of a fatal outcome [17].

Numerous studies demonstrate that FTR is a dynamic indicator reflecting not only clinical outcomes but also the organizational maturity of the surgical service [14, 17, 18]. Sustained reduction in FTR requires a comprehensive approach encompassing standardization of diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms, continuous complication audit, and the establishment of effective rapid-response systems [17, 18].

Analysis of the direct causes of death following PD indicates that the majority of fatal outcomes (up to 85%) are attributable to local surgical complications, most notably pancreatic anastomotic leakage and its sequelae (arrosive hemorrhage, sepsis, multiorgan failure) [19]. Critically, a therapeutic window exists during which timely application of modern minimally invasive approaches (e.g., percutaneous drainage) or surgical re-intervention can avert a fatal outcome [19].

The observed paradox—a high complication rate coexisting with low mortality—reflects the current state of development in pancreatology. It has been made possible through the synergy of three key elements: the refinement and standardization of surgical technique, the optimization of perioperative management, and, most critically, the creation of effective clinical-organizational systems for the early detection and prompt, aggressive treatment of complications as they arise [20].

KEY FACTORS UNDERLYING THE ZERO-MORTALITY CONCEPT

Surgical volume and standardization of surgical technique

The comparative effectiveness of centralized (high-volume) versus decentralized (low-volume) clinical models with respect to FTR following pancreaticoduodenectomy is supported by data from large multicenter studies. Centralized institutions consistently demonstrate statistically significantly lower FTR rates compared with decentralized counterparts. According to national and international registry data and systematic reviews, the FTR rate following PD is 11–19% in high-volume centers versus 18–41% in low-volume centers [14, 21]. A multicenter study conducted in Germany found that the risk of FTR and mortality following complications was substantially lower in centers with the highest operative volume (OR 0.47) [22]. Analysis of the French national database confirmed that low and intermediate annual operative volume represent independent predictors of elevated FTR (OR 1.54 and 1.27, respectively) [23].

Models proposing consolidation of two high-volume centers yield additional reductions in FTR (from 4.9% to 1.1%) and mortality, attributable not solely to the absolute increase in caseload but also to optimization of infrastructure and interdisciplinary processes [21]. A systematic review demonstrated that centralization of care for complex surgical procedures was associated with reduced FTR across all analyzed studies, an effect not observed for less complex operations [24].

An international study spanning 67 countries demonstrated that the FTR rate was twice as high in countries with low centralization of surgical care and limited resource availability (41% vs. 19%) [14]; furthermore, the transfer of patients with established complications from low-volume centers to expert institutions does not compensate for outcomes— FTR rates among such patients remain significantly elevated [25].

In summary, centralized models of surgical care for pancreatic pathology deliver substantially lower FTR rates, attributable to accumulated expertise, established multidisciplinary protocols, and institutional infrastructure. The threshold value currently associated with reduced FTR is the performance of more than 20 pancreatic resections per year [25].

Standardization of surgical technique implies a shift from so-called “craft surgery”—in which the surgeon’s actions are largely dictated by individual experience—to protocol-based surgery, in which each operative step is regulated on the basis of evidence-derived data.

Particular attention is devoted to the construction of the pancreaticodigestive anastomosis, since complications arising from the pancreatic remnant represent the primary cause of postoperative mortality. No single ideal method of anastomosis formation currently exists; centers are advised to select and master one to two reproducible techniques [26]. The critical determinant of a favorable outcome is not the type of anastomosis per se, but rather its technically impeccable execution [26].

Additional important aspects of operative standardization include: the establishment of clear resectability criteria and the avoidance of so-called “desperation resections” carrying a high risk of a positive resection margin (R1) in hemodynamically unstable patients at high perioperative risk [27]; and the proficient and confident execution of venous resections and reconstructions when required, with minimization of intraoperative blood loss (preferably below 500 mL) [27, 28].

Organizational factors

A pivotal development in the enhancement of PD safety in recent years has been the implementation of standardized algorithms for the early detection and management of postoperative complications, with priority given to minimally invasive approaches. A large randomized trial demonstrated that daily structured patient assessment based on a defined algorithm-incorporating monitoring of vital signs, drain output characteristics, and inflammatory markers (white blood cell count and C-reactive protein)—allows complications to be identified at a preclinical stage, enabling timely initiation of confirmatory workup (e.g., computed tomography when threshold values are exceeded) [29].

Upon confirmation of a complication, the algorithm mandates the preferential application of minimally invasive interventions: image-guided percutaneous drainage, targeted antibiotic therapy, and early drain removal to reduce infectious risk. This approach yields a substantial reduction in the rates of reoperation, mortality, and FTR [29, 30]. Minimally invasive techniques: including drainage, embolization, and stenting—are recognized as highly effective strategies for managing postoperative pancreatic fistulae, abscesses, and hemorrhage, as evidenced by reductions in mortality at centers with well-developed interventional radiology services [29, 30].

A multicenter randomized trial demonstrated that the implementation of such an algorithm reduced 90-day mortality from 5% to 3%, and the FTR rate among patients with severe complications from 15% to 8%. This effect was equally pronounced in high-, intermediate-, and low-volume centers. The algorithm employed low thresholds for initiating antibiotic therapy and minimally invasive drainage, facilitating more proactive identification and treatment of fistulae without a concomitant increase in the rate of clinically significant complications [29].

Risk-stratified postoperative care protocols (e.g., RSPCP)—with stepwise optimization of components including early drain removal, accelerated initiation of enteral nutrition, and restriction of intravenous fluid administration—achieve the greatest reductions in complication rates and mortality in high-risk patients, bringing their outcomes closer to those of low-risk groups. Adherence to Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) principles is likewise associated with reduced complication rates and shorter length of hospital stay [31, 32].

The availability of around-the-clock access to interventional radiology and endoscopy services, together with the transition to minimally invasive complication management (minimally invasive drainage, endovascular embolization) in lieu of reoperation, yields statistically significant reductions in mortality and the rate of repeat operative interventions, particularly in cases of fistula formation or hemorrhage [30, 33].

Worthy of particular attention is the development of non-technical skills among clinical staff (teamwork, effective communication, leadership), which are associated with improved clinical outcomes, although the precise magnitude of their effect warrants further investigation [12].

Multidisciplinary approach and rigorous patient selection

According to contemporary clinical guidelines and large-scale meta-analyses, the most effective patient selection criteria for pancreaticoduodenectomy are as follows: absence of severe comorbidity, particularly a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2; preserved functional status; localized disease without distant metastases; technical feasibility of achieving a radical (R0) resection; and anatomical resectability of the tumor, assessed in light of the extent of major vascular involvement (e.g., portal vein and superior mesenteric vein). Studies indicate that patients with tumor size ≥3 cm and high comorbidity scores carry a substantially elevated risk of postoperative complications and mortality, underscoring the need for particularly rigorous preoperative selection in this subgroup [34, 35].

The most effective multidisciplinary team frameworks incorporate the following mandatory components: discussion of every case at a multidisciplinary tumor board with representation from surgery, anesthesiology/critical care, radiology, interventional radiology, gastroenterology, and oncology; comprehensive preoperative patient optimization (prehabilitation, nutritional support, management of comorbidities); daily structured postoperative monitoring employing early complication-detection algorithms (assessment of temperature, C-reactive protein, leukocyte count, drain amylase, and CT imaging when complications are suspected); and prompt deployment of minimally invasive interventions upon confirmation of a complication. The implementation of such algorithms has been shown to reduce mortality by nearly twofold [29, 36].

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols play a key role in the realization of the zero-mortality concept in pancreaticoduodenectomy by providing standardized multidisciplinary management, reducing complication rates, and accelerating functional recovery. Integration of ERAS components including preoperative optimization, early mobilization, minimization of invasive procedures, early initiation of enteral nutrition, and rigorous pain control—reduces the overall surgical stress response and the risk of postoperative complications [37].

Implementation of ERAS protocols demonstrably reduces the overall complication rate, including infectious complications and delayed gastric emptying, and shortens hospital length of stay, without increasing the rate of readmission or mortality [38–40]. High protocol adherence is associated with improved clinical outcomes, particularly in centers practicing a multidisciplinary approach and stringent patient selection [38–40]. Adherence to ERAS principles contributes to the attainment of an “ideal outcome”—defined as the absence of serious complications, reoperations, and fatal outcomes [41].

The efficacy of ERAS has been validated in high perioperative risk groups, including elderly patients and those with significant comorbid burden. Contemporary evidence confirms that ERAS is safe and clinically effective even in patients aged over 80 years and in those with high comorbidity indices [42–44].

The most critically important ERAS elements for reducing mortality and complication rates in high-risk patients are:

  1. Early initiation of enteral or oral nutrition and avoidance of prolonged fasting, which reduces infectious complication rates, accelerates recovery of gastrointestinal function, and shortens hospital stay [32, 37, 45];
  2. Early postoperative mobilization, including ambulation on the day of surgery and progressive increases in physical activity from postoperative day two onwards, which demonstrably reduces the risk of thromboembolic and other postoperative complications [46];
  3. Avoidance of routine nasogastric intubation, which is associated with a reduction in delayed gastric emptying and in the overall complication rate [32, 39];
  4. Standardized multimodal analgesia with minimization of opioid use, which attenuates the surgical stress response, reduces the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular complications, and facilitates early patient ambulation [47];
  5. Optimized fluid therapy: balanced fluid administration prevents hypervolemia, reduces the risk of cardiopulmonary complications, and promotes recovery [47].

High overall adherence to the ERAS protocol (≥70%) is independently associated with reduced complication rates and shortened hospital length of stay [38].

In summary, the ERAS protocol retains its safety and efficacy in elderly and comorbid patients, without increasing complication rates or mortality. There is no evidence-based justification for excluding or substantially modifying individual protocol elements solely on the basis of age or comorbidity, however, careful monitoring and individualized adjustments within the framework of the protocol are required (e.g., tailoring fluid therapy volumes, selecting the optimal analgesic approach in light of comorbidities, and monitoring nutritional status). The key condition for success is maximal adherence to all core ERAS principles, adapted to the individual clinical characteristics of the patient [44].

Analysis of mortality causes

Systematic analysis of the causes of mortality following pancreaticoduodenectomy constitutes a pivotal instrument for implementing a strategy of fatal outcome minimization. Such analysis enables identification of the primary pathogenetic mechanisms underlying lethal complications, determination of the proportion of preventable deaths, and the formulation of targeted strategies for their reduction.

According to contemporary data, the majority of fatal outcomes are associated with the development of local postoperative complications, most notably pancreaticodigestive anastomotic leakage and arrosive hemorrhage, as well as systemic manifestations such as cardiovascular and respiratory complications. Meticulous analysis of mortality causes allows identification of critical windows of opportunity for timely intervention, providing the foundation for the prevention of FTR syndrome [48–50].

It is estimated that up to 30% of fatal outcomes following pancreaticoduodenectomy are potentially preventable [17, 20]. The principal areas for reducing this proportion include: optimization of patient selection criteria; improvement of preoperative workup and risk stratification; implementation of standardized postoperative monitoring algorithms, and the provision of a multidisciplinary management approach [17, 20, 48–50].

Thus, structured mortality analysis serves not only a retrospective auditing function, evaluating the quality of surgical and perioperative care delivered, but also as the foundation for introducing targeted clinical protocols. These protocols are designed to reduce the incidence of critical complications, enhance the efficacy of rescue interventions, and ultimately achieve the lowest attainable mortality rate for this operative procedure [50].

CONCLUSION

The zero-mortality concept following pancreaticoduodenectomy represents an ambitious objective that characterizes a contemporary paradigm shift in pancreatic surgery. It is achievable not through revolutionary discoveries, but through the meticulous implementation of comprehensive protocols at every stage of the patient’s care, from planning through rehabilitation. The key determinants of success are the centralization of procedures in highly specialized centers, the functioning of multidisciplinary teams, and an uncompromising commitment to evidence-based process standardization.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Author contributions: V.I. Egorov, definition of the concept, work with data, revision and editing of the manuscript; B.F. Rachmatullin, work with data, writing a draft of the manuscript; A.V. Pasheev, revision and editing of the manuscript. Thereby, all authors provided approval of the version to be published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Funding source: The work was carried out at the expense of a grant provided by the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan to educational organizations of higher education, scientific and other organizations to support plans for the development of human resources in terms of stimulating their scientific and teaching staff to defend doctoral dissertations and perform research.

Disclosure of interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Statement of originality: The article uses the information collected for the first time.

Data availability statement: The authors report that all the data is presented in the article.

Generative AI: Generative AI technologies were not used for this article creation.

×

About the authors

Vasiliy I. Egorov

Kazan State Medical University; Republican Clinical Oncology Dispensary of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Tatarstan named after Professor M.Z. Sigal

Author for correspondence.
Email: drvasiliy21@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6603-1390
SPIN-code: 7794-4210

MD, PhD

Russian Federation, Kazan; Kazan

Bulat F. Rachmatullin

Republican Clinical Oncology Dispensary of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Tatarstan named after Professor M.Z. Sigal

Email: rachmatullin95@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0007-2761-3228
SPIN-code: 5324-2057
Russian Federation, Kazan

Artur V. Pasheev

Republican Clinical Oncology Dispensary of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Tatarstan named after Professor M.Z. Sigal

Email: reanimart1@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0009-6470-4713
SPIN-code: 4445-9850

MD, PhD

Russian Federation, Kazan

References

  1. Kairaluoma MI, Ståhlberg M, Kiviniemi H, Haukipuro K. Results of pancreatoduodenectomy for carcinoma of the head of the pancreas. Hepatogastroenterology. 1989;36(6):412–418.
  2. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Giuliani T, et al. Pancreatoduodenectomy at the verona pancreas institute: the evolution of indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes: a retrospective analysis of 3000 consecutive cases. Ann Surg. 2022;276(6):1029–1038. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004753 EDN: ABNRMJ
  3. Xu H, Bretthauer M, Fang F, et al. Dramatic improvements in outcome following pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary cancers. Br J Cancer. 2024;131(4):747–754. doi: 10.1038/s41416-024-02757-w EDN: MFJNUY
  4. Oguro S, Yoshimoto J, Imamura H, et al. Three hundred and sixty-eight consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies with zero mortality. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2017;24(4):226–234. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.433
  5. Machado MC, Machado MA. Systematic use of isolated pancreatic anastomosis after pancreatoduodenectomy: five years of experience with zero mortality. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(10):1584–1590. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.05.023
  6. Liotiri D, Diamantis A, Paraskeva I, et al. The role of enhanced recovery after surgery in pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Surg Res. 2024;65(1):95–115. doi: 10.1159/000539785 EDN: FQQRFI
  7. Panni RZ, Panni UY, Liu J, et al. Re-defining a high-volume center for pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2021;23(5):733–738. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.09.009 EDN: JTDARM
  8. Steen MW, van Rijssen LB, Festen S, et al. Impact of time interval between multidisciplinary team meeting and intended pancreatoduodenectomy on oncological outcomes. BJS Open. 2020;4(5):884–892. doi: 10.1002/bjs5.50319 EDN: AIGDCS
  9. Kapoor VK. Gastrointestinal emergencies. 3rd ed. Indian J Med Res. 2017;146(4):551–552. doi: 10.4103/0971-5916.224938
  10. Sharon CE, Thaler AS, Straker RJ, et al. Fourteen years of pancreatic surgery for malignancy among ACS-NSQIP centers: trends in major morbidity and mortality. Surgery. 2022;172(2):708–714. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.03.030 EDN: BALZJQ
  11. Lillemoe KD, Yeo CJ, Cameron JL. Pancreatic cancer: state-of-the-art care. CA Cancer J Clin. 2000;50(4):241–268. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.50.4.241
  12. Uramatsu M, Fujisawa Y, Barach P, et al. Failure to rescue after surgery for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of risk factors and safety strategies. Cancers (Basel). 2025;17(19):3259. doi: 10.3390/cancers17193259 EDN: ZDANOI
  13. Gleeson EM, Pitt HA, Mackay TM, et al. Failure to rescue after pancreatoduodenectomy: a transatlantic analysis. Ann Surg. 2021;274(3):459–466. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005000 EDN: SMBKIS
  14. Pancreas Group.org Collaborative. Pancreatic surgery outcomes: multicentre prospective snapshot study in 67 countries. Br J Surg. 2024;111(1):znad330. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad330 EDN: WCCVZT
  15. Stoop TF, Javed AA, Oba A, et al. Pancreatic cancer. Lancet. 2025;405(10485):1182–1202. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00261-2
  16. Vawter K, Kuhn S, Pitt H, et al. Complications and failure-to-rescue after pancreatectomy and hospital participation in the targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry. Surgery. 2023;174(5):1235–1240. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.07.023 EDN: QRLPNB
  17. Kinny-Köster B, Halm D, Tran D, et al. Who do we fail to rescue after pancreatoduodenectomy? Outcomes among >4000 procedures expose windows of opportunity. Ann Surg. 2026;283(2):277–285. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006429 EDN: STVWCX
  18. Patel A, Morocho B, Ritter J, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy does not impact failure to rescue in patients undergoing pancreatectomy. J Surg Res. 2024;302:865–875. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2024.07.060 EDN: MEMAQQ
  19. Giuliani T, Marchegiani G, Di Gioia A, et al. Patterns of mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy: a root cause, day-to-day analysis. Surgery. 2022;172(1):329–335. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.01.005 EDN: QGIGID
  20. Henry AC, Smits FJ, Daamen LA, et al. Root-cause analysis of mortality after pancreatic resection in a nationwide cohort. HPB (Oxford). 2025;27(4):461–469. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2024.11.014 EDN: AOQJBW
  21. Johnson BA, Moturu A, Eagle S, et al. Effect of centralized surgical care on performance outcomes across multi-hospital systems: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2026;283(1):1–9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006878 EDN: SEBVUC
  22. Krautz C, Nimptsch U, Weber GF, et al. Effect of hospital volume on in-hospital morbidity and mortality following pancreatic surgery in Germany. Ann Surg. 2018;267(3):411–417. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002248
  23. El Amrani M, Clement G, Lenne X, et al. Failure-to-rescue in patients undergoing pancreatectomy: is hospital volume a standard for quality improvement programs? Nationwide analysis of 12,333 patients. Ann Surg. 2018;268(5):799–807. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002945
  24. Rompen IF, Menso JE, Ingwersen E, et al. Impact of merging two high-volume centers on patient outcome: 1000 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies. Ann Surg. 2025 Sep 30. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006953 EDN: RJZWRW
  25. El Amrani M, Lenne X, Clément G, et al. Referring patients to expert centers after pancreatectomy is too late to improve outcome. Inter-hospital transfer analysis in nationwide study of 19,938 patients. Ann Surg. 2020;272(5):723–730. doi: 10.1097/SLA.000000000000434
  26. Котельников А.Г., Патютко Ю.И., Подлужный Д.В., и др. Панкреатодигестивный анастомоз — ключ к благоприятному исходу панкреатодуоденальной резекции // Анналы хирургической гепатологии. 2022. Т. 27, № 3. С. 92–99. [Kotelnikov AG, Patyutko YuI, Podluzhny DV, et al. Рancreatodigestive anastomosis: the key to a favorable outcome of pancreaticoduodenal resection. Annaly khirurgicheskoy gepatologii. 2022;27(3):92–99]. doi: 10.16931/1995-5464.2022-3-92-99 EDN: OMWHQF
  27. Wu YH, Oba A, Lin R, et al. Selecting surgical candidates with locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a review for modern pancreatology. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2021;12(5):2475–2483. doi: 10.21037/jgo-21-119 EDN: BUHLTM
  28. Theijse RT, Stoop TF, Leenart PD, et al. Surgery for locally advanced pancreatic cancer following induction chemotherapy: a single-center experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2024;31(9):6180–6192. doi: 10.1245/s10434-024-15591-4 EDN: PQIRMM
  29. Smits FJ, Henry AC, Besselink MG, et al. Algorithm-based care versus usual care for the early recognition and management of complications after pancreatic resection in the Netherlands: an open-label, nationwide, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2022;399(10338):1867–1875. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00182-9
  30. Hartwig W, Werner J, Jäger D, et al. Improvement of surgical results for pancreatic cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(11):e476–e485. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70172-4
  31. Ayabe RI, Prakash LR, Bruno ML, et al. Differential gains in surgical outcomes for high-risk vs low-risk pancreaticoduodenectomy with successive refinements of risk-stratified care pathways. J Am Coll Surg. 2023;237(1):4–12. doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000652 EDN: DRGULT
  32. Sun YM, Wang Y, Mao YX, Wang W. The safety and feasibility of enhanced recovery after surgery in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: an updated meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:7401276. doi: 10.1155/2020/7401276 EDN: PQHKEJ
  33. Tol JA, Busch OR, van Delden OM, et al. Shifting role of operative and nonoperative interventions in managing complications after pancreatoduodenectomy: what is the preferred intervention? Surgery. 2014;156(3):622–631. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.04.026
  34. Park W, Chawla A, O’Reilly EM. Pancreatic cancer: a review. JAMA. 2021;326(9):851–862. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.13027 EDN: FCPOGU. Erratum in: JAMA. 2021;326(20):2081. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.19984
  35. Khalid A, Shah M, Fazal AA, et al. Standard-adherent surgery and guideline-based therapy in pancreatic cancer: a multicenter analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2025;32(9):6519–6530. doi: 10.1245/s10434-025-17467-7 EDN: RHPQTO
  36. Giuliani T, Perri G, Kang R, et al. Current perioperative care in pancreatoduodenectomy: a step-by-step surgical roadmap from first visit to discharge. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(9):2499. doi: 10.3390/cancers15092499 EDN: XOHMFC
  37. Kuemmerli C, Tschuor C, Kasai M, et al. Impact of enhanced recovery protocols after pancreatoduodenectomy: meta-analysis. Br J Surg. 2022;109(3):256–266. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znab436 EDN: VAUANY
  38. Noba L, Rodgers S, Doi L, et al. Costs and clinical benefits of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in pancreaticoduodenectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2023;149(9):6639–6660. doi: 10.1007/s00432-022-04508-x EDN: NRDMDG
  39. Wang XY, Cai JP, Huang CS, et al. Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol on pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of non-randomized and randomized controlled trials. HPB (Oxford). 2020;22(10):1373–1383. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.07.001 EDN: YLTNUJ
  40. Ellwanger MP, Ellwanger MP, Jardine MB, et al. Effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Surg. 2025;29(3):101939. doi: 10.1016/j.gassur.2024.101939 EDN: BTFNBV
  41. Lof S, Benedetti Cacciaguerra A, Aljarrah R, et al. Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery for pancreatoduodenectomy increases the proportion of patients achieving textbook outcome: a retrospective cohort study. Pancreatology. 2020;20(5):976–983. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2020.05.018 EDN: NDCDOE
  42. Kuemmerli C, Balzano G, Bouwense SA, et al. Are enhanced recovery protocols after pancreatoduodenectomy still efficient when applied in elderly patients? A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2024;31(5):308–317. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.1417 EDN: JBDKBL
  43. Raza SS, Nutu OA, Powell-Brett S, et al. Impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol on short-term outcomes in elderly patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2022;24(10):1720–1728. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2022.05.002 EDN: EXEQMA
  44. Scarsi S, Martin D, Halkic N, et al. Enhanced recovery in elderly patients undergoing pancreatic resection: a retrospective monocentric study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022;101(23):e29494. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029494 EDN: OKTITO
  45. Xiong J, Szatmary P, Huang W, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery program in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(18):e3497. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003497
  46. Roulin D, Melloul E, Wellg BE, et al. Feasibility of an enhanced recovery protocol for elective pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicenter international cohort study. World J Surg. 2020;44(8):2761–2769. doi: 10.1007/s00268-020-05499-x EDN: JWJUVV
  47. Im K, O’Connor VV. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) after pancreatectomy: interventions and outcomes at an ERAS qualified pancreatectomy center. Am Surg. 2025;91(10):1786–1791. doi: 10.1177/00031348251359117 EDN: LICPNW
  48. Beugniez C, Sauvanet A, Sulpice L, et al. Root-cause analysis of mortality after pancreatic resection (CARE Study): a multicenter cohort study. Ann Surg. 2021;274(5):789–796. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005118 EDN: QAFWMD
  49. Pastrana Del Valle J, Mahvi DA, Fairweather M, et al. The improvement in post-operative mortality following pancreaticoduodenectomy between 2006 and 2016 is associated with an improvement in the ability to rescue patients after major morbidity, not in the rate of major morbidity. HPB (Oxford). 2021;23(3):434–443. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.07.013 EDN: OQTPBV
  50. Stevens CL, Reid JL, Babidge WJ, et al. Peer review of mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy in Australia. HPB (Oxford). 2019;21(11):1470–1477. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.03.356

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2026 Eco-Vector

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 38032 от 11 ноября 2009 года.