The pancreas is an entirely retroperitoneal structure, and hence, the initial step of recognizing a pancreatic injury is at times difficult. This is particularly critical since delays in recognition and appropriate management dramatically increase morbidity. This review article discusses the important anatomical features of the pancreas, the large variety of diagnostic maneuvers and their pitfalls, and a management strategy for pancreatic injury that is largely based on the organ injury scale. Nuances in the operative management are highlighted, as they are the most challenging of management dilemmas, making this a review of "What you need to know" about pancreatic trauma.

The utility of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for high-grade traumatic injuries remains unclear and data surrounding its use are limited. We hypothesized that PD does not result in improved outcomes when compared with non-PD surgical management of grade IV-V pancreaticoduodenal injuries.

This is a retrospective, multicenter analysis from 35 level 1 trauma centers from January 2010 to December 2020. Included patients were ≥15 years of age with the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade IV-V duodenal and/or pancreatic injuries. The study compared operative repair strategy: PD versus non-PD.

The sample (n=95) was young (26 years), male (82%), with predominantly penetrating injuries (76%). There was no difference in demographics, hemodynamics, or blood product requirement on presentation between PD (n=32) vs non-PD (n=63). Anatomically, PD patients had more grade V duodenal, grade V pancreatic, ampullary, and pancreatic ductal injuries compared with non-PD patients (all p<0.05). 43% of all grade V duodenal injuries and 40% of all grade V pancreatic injuries were still managed with non-PD. One-third of non-PD duodenal injuries were managed with primary repair alone. PD patients had more gastrointestinal (GI)-related complications, longer intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), and longer hospital LOS compared with non-PD (all p<0.05). There was no difference in mortality or readmission. Multivariable logistic regression analysis determined PD to be associated with a 3.8-fold greater odds of GI complication (p=0.010) compared with non-PD. In a subanalysis of patients without ampullary injuries (n=60), PD patients had more anastomotic leaks compared with the non-PD group (3 (30%) vs 2 (4%), p=0.028).

While PD patients did not have worse hemodynamics or blood product requirements on admission, they sustained more complex anatomic injuries and had more GI complications and longer LOS than non-PD patients. We suggest that the role of PD should be limited to cases of massive destruction of the pancreatic head and ampullary complex, given the likely procedure-related morbidity and adverse outcomes when compared with non-PD management.

IV, Multicenter retrospective comparative study.

The diagnostic performance of multiple tests for detecting the presence of a main pancreatic duct injury remains poor. Given the central importance of main duct integrity for both subsequent treatment algorithms and patient outcomes, poor test reliability is problematic. The primary aim was to evaluate the comparative test performance of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) for detecting main pancreatic duct injuries.

All severely injured adult patients with pancreatic trauma (2010-2021) were evaluated. Patients who received an IOUS pancreas-focused evaluation, with Grades III, IV, and V injuries (main duct injury) were compared with those with Grade I and Grade II trauma (no main duct injury). Test performances were analyzed.

Of 248 pancreatic injuries, 74 underwent an IOUS. The additional mix of diagnostic studies (CT, MRCP, ERCP) was variable across grade of injury. Of these 74 IOUS cases for pancreatic injuries, 48 (64.8%) were confirmed as Grades III, IV, or V main duct injuries. The patients were predominantly young (median age = 33, IQR:21-45) blunt injured (70%) males (74%) with severe injury demographics (injury severity score = 28, (IQR:19-36); 30% hemodynamic instability; 91% synchronous intra-abdominal injuries). Thirty-five percent of patients required damage-control surgery. Patient outcomes included a median 13-day hospital length of stay and 1% mortality rate. Test performance was variable across groups (CT = 58% sensitive/77% specific; MRCP = 71% sensitive/100% specific; ERCP = 100% sensitive; IOUS = 98% sensitive/100% specific).

Intraoperative ultrasound is a highly sensitive and specific test for detecting main pancreatic duct injuries. This technology is simple to learn, readily available, and should be considered in patients who require concurrent non-damage-control abdominal operations.

Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level III.

The optimal management strategy for pancreatic trauma remains unclear. We aimed to determine whether the initial nonoperative management (NOM) strategy based on percutaneous drainage combined with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography guided stent placement would improve outcomes for blunt high-grade pancreatic trauma.

Patients with blunt abdominal trauma who were hemodynamically stable without signs of diffuse peritonitis were consecutively enrolled at a high-volume center. The primary outcome was the occurrence of severe complications (Clavien‒Dindo classification ≥ Ⅲb) for patients who underwent initial laparotomy (LAP) versus NOM. Modified Poisson regression was used to model the primary outcome. Propensity score matching and weighting models were included into a regression-based sensitivity analysis.

Of 119 patients with grade III/IV pancreatic trauma, 29 patients underwent initial NOM, and 90 underwent initial LAP. The incidence of severe complications in the LAP group was higher than that in the NOM group (65/90 [72.2%] versus 9/29 [31.0%], P < 0.001). In the multivariable modified Poisson regression model, the relative risk for severe complications was decreased in the NOM group (relative risk, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.90; P = 0.020). The results of the sensitivity analysis were consistent with those of the multivariable analysis. The mean number of reinterventions per patient was 1.8 in the NOM group and 2.6 in the LAP group (P = 0.067).

For blunt high-grade pancreatic trauma patients with stable hemodynamics and no diffuse peritonitis, the NOM strategy was associated with a lower risk of severe complications (Clavien‒Dindo classification ≥ Ⅲb) and did not require more invasive reintervention procedures. In high-volume centers with sufficient expertise, percutaneous drainage combined with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography guided stent placement may serve as an initial reasonable option for selected patients.

The single most important predictor of pancreas-specific complications (PSCs) after pancreatic trauma is injury to the main pancreatic duct (MPD). Pancreatography has been recommended to evaluate the integrity of the MPD. In addition, pancreatic duct stents have been proposed to prevent or treat PSC. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in diagnosing MPD injury. We further sought to determine whether stents were effective in preventing PSC or facilitated the resolution of pancreatic leaks or fistulae.

A secondary analysis of a multicenter retrospective review of pancreatic injuries in patients 15 years and older from 2010 to 2018, focusing on patients who underwent MRCP or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), was performed. Final pancreatic injury grade was determined based on all available assessments, ultimately adjudicated by the site principal investigator. Data were analyzed using various statistical tests where appropriate.

Thirty-three centers reported on 1,243 patients. A total of 216 underwent pancreatography-137 had MRCP and 115 ERCP, with 36 having both. The sensitivity of MRCP for MPD injury was 37%, the specificity was 94%, the positive predictive value was 77%, and the negative predictive value was 73%. When compared with ERCP, MRCP findings were discordant in 64% of cases. Pancreatic stents were placed in 77 patients; 48 (62%) were to treat PSC, with no clear benefit. Twenty-nine had prophylactic stents placed. There did not appear to be benefit in reduced PSC compared with the entire study group or among patients with high-grade pancreatic injuries.

The accuracy of MRCP to evaluate the integrity of the MPD does not appear to be superior to computed tomography scan. Consequently, the results of MRCP should be interpreted with caution. The current data do not support prophylactic use of pancreatic stents; they should be studied in a prospective trial.

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

The Western Trauma Association (WTA) has undertaken publication of best practice clinical practice guidelines on multiple trauma topics. These guidelines are based on scientific evidence, case reports, and best practices per expert opinion. Some of the topics covered by this consensus group do not have the ability to have randomized controlled studies completed because of complexity, ethical issues, financial considerations, or scarcity of experience and cases. Blunt pancreatic trauma falls under one of these clinically complex and rare scenarios. This algorithm is the result of an extensive literature review and input from the WTA membership and WTA Algorithm Committee members.

Multiple evidence-based guideline reviews, case reports, and expert opinion were compiled and reviewed.

The algorithm is attached with detailed explanation of each step, supported by data if available.

Blunt pancreatic trauma is rare and presents many treatment challenges.

Pancreatic trauma is rare compared to other abdominal solid organ injuries, accounting for 0.2%-0.3% of all trauma patients. Moreover, this type of injury may frequently be overlooked or not readily appreciated on initial clinical examinations and investigations. The organ injury scale determines the severity of the trauma. Nonetheless, there are conflicting recommendations for the best strategy in severe cases. Overall, conservative management of induced severe traumatic pancreatitis is adequate. Modern imaging modalities such as ultrasound scanning and computed tomography scanning can detect injuries in fewer than 60% of patients. However, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have diagnostic accuracies approaching 90%-100%. Thus, management options include ERCP and stent placement or distal pancreatectomy in cases of complete gland transection and wide drainage only for damage control surgery, which can prevent mortality but increases the risk of morbidity. In the majority of cases, surgical intervention is not required and should be reserved for only severe grade III to grade V injuries.

Ongoing hemorrhage from hepatobiliary and pancreatic injuries continues to daunt even the most experienced surgeon. Despite the widespread centralization of elective hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery to high-volume centers, HPB trauma remains relatively common and requires a rapid and thoughtful approach [[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]].