https://www.ijmhr.org/ijar.htm editor_anatomy@ijmhr.org
ISSN:       2321-4281 (E) 2321-8967 (P)

IJAR.2018.191

DOWNLOAD PDF
Table of Contents

Type of Article:  Original Research

Volume 6; Issue 2.3 (June 2018)

Page No.: 5301-5305

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2018.191

PREVALENCE OF PATENCY OF ACCESSORY PANCREATIC DUCT AT MINOR PAPILLA IN SOUTH INDIAN POPULATION: A CADAVERIC STUDY

M. Pairoja Sultana 1, Jyothi Jatthavath *2, C.K. Lakshmidevi 3.

1 Assistant professor in Anatomy, ACSR Govt. medical college, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India.

*2 Assistant professor in Anatomy, RIMS, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh, India.

3 Professor and Head of the Department of Anatomy, ACSR Govt. Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Corresponding author: Jothi Jatthavath, Assistant professor in Anatomy, RIMS, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh, India.
E-Mail: drjyothibalu@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:

The accessory pancreatic duct is the smaller and less constant pancreatic duct in comparison with the main pancreatic duct. We investigated the patency of the accessory pancreatic duct and its role in pancreatic pathophysiology. The present study was carried out in the department of Anatomy and forensic medicine, ACSR Govt. medical college, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India and in the department of Anatomy, RIMS, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh, India. With 96 human cadavers (64 males and 32 females) with 30 to 80 years age group have been studied after obtained of ethical committee permission. The dissection method was followed to obtain specimen of pancreas along with C-loop of duodenum, papillae were identified ad dye was injected into APD to see its patency at MIP. 93.75% specimens present MIP.  The prevalence of patency of APD at MIP in population under study was 38.89%; this is more in males was 43.33%, when compared to the females was 30% but this difference was not significant statistically.  It observed that out of 35 patent APD cases, 33 cases had inter papillary distance either 2cm or more than 2cm. I t indicates 94.29% of patent APD cases had inter-papillary distance ≥2cm. So there is strong relationship between APD patency and inter papillary distance in population under study. The means inter-papillary distance in patent APD cases was 2.29 ± 0.2cm and non-patent APD cases was 1.85 ± 0.25 cm. This difference was statistically significant.

Key words: Accessory Pancreatic Duct (APD), endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERCP), minor duodenal papilla (MIP), Cadaveric Study.

REFERENCES

  1. Lucas N. Pina, Leonardo Abramson, Franca S. Samoilovich, Agustín Rodriguez, Débora C. Knaus, María L. Tartaglia, et al. The pancreatic ductal system and biliaropancreatic union: a study of 50 cases. J. Anat. 2013;17 (4): 193-201.
  2. Kamisawa T. Clinical significance of the minor duodenal papilla and accessory pancreatic duct. J Gastroenterol. 2004;39:605-15.
  3. Arora A K, Piplani M. L, Kapoor  S S, Bhatia B. S, Singh A. R. K., Verma P et al. A research study of Santorini duct. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic research. 2011:5(8);1510-3.
  4. Dawson W, Langman J. An anatomical-radiological study on the pancreatic duct pattern in man. Anatomical Rec. 1961;139:59–68.
  5. Millbourn E. On the excretory ducts of the pancreas in man, with reference to their relations to each other, to the common bile duct and to the duodenum. Acta Anat. 1950;9:1–34.
  6. Kato K. A fundamental study of pancreatography. Jpn J Gastroenterol. 1972;69:503–23.
  7. Kamisawa T, Tabata I, Isawa T, et al. Patency of the accessory pancreatic duct by dye-injected ERP. Int J Pancreatol. 1992;12:82.
  8. Kamisawa T, Tabata I, Tajima T, et al. Patency of the human accessory pancreatic duct as determined by dye-injection endoscopic retrograde pancreatography. Digestion. 1997;58:78–82.
  9. Khalid A and Slivka A. Pancreas Divisum. Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology. 2001;4:389-99.
  10. Androulakis J, Colborn GL, Skandalakis PN, Skandalakis LJ, Skandalakis JE. Embryologic and anatomic basis of duodenal surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2000;80(1):171-99.
  11. Sulochana S, Sasikala P, Sivakami T. Gross morphology of major and minor duodenal papilla: a cadaveric study.2013;2(2): 61-6.
  12. M. Baldwin. The pancreatic duct in man, together with a study of the microscopical structure of the minor duodenal papilla. The anatomical record. 1911: 5(5).
  13. Hand BH: Anatomy and embryology of pancreas and biliary duct; Gastroenterologic Endoscopy. W B Saunders, Philadelphia. 1987;604-9.
  14. Rani A, Latha S. patency of accessory pancreatic duct and its relation with duodenal inter-papillary distance. Indian J Gastroentrol. 2012;31(1):24-6.
  15. Lokadolalu Chandracharya Prasanna, KV rajagopal, Huban R Thomas, Kumar MR Bhat. Accessory Pancreatic Duct Patterns and Their Clinical Implications. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2015;9(3):AC05-AC07.
  16. Tabata T, Kamisawa T, Takuma K, Anjiki H, Egawa N. A patent accessory pancreatic duct prevent pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Dig Surg. 2010;27:140-3.
  17. Ohta T, nagakawa T, Kobayashi H, Kayahara M, Ueno K, Konishi I, Miyazaki I. Histomorphological study on the minor duodenal papilla. Gastroenterol Jpn. 1991;26(3):356-62.
  18. Dawson W, Langman J. An anatomical-radiological study on the pancreatic duct pattern in man. Anat Rec. 1961;139:59-68.

Cite this article: M. Pairoja Sultana, Jyothi Jatthavath, C.K. Lakshmidevi. PREVALENCE OF PATENCY OF ACCESSORY PANCREATIC DUCT AT MINOR PAPILLA IN SOUTH INDIAN POPULATION: A CADAVERIC STUDY. Int J Anat Res 2018;6(2.3):5301-5305. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2018.191