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

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.