-
BMC Surgery May 2019Duodenal stump fistula (DSF) remains one of the most serious complications following subtotal or total gastrectomy, as it endangers patient's life. DSF is related to...
BACKGROUND
Duodenal stump fistula (DSF) remains one of the most serious complications following subtotal or total gastrectomy, as it endangers patient's life. DSF is related to high mortality (16-20%) and morbidity (75%) rates. DSF-related morbidity always leads to longer hospitalization times due to medical and surgical complications such as wound infections, intra-abdominal abscesses, intra-abdominal bleeding, acute pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, severe malnutrition, fluids and electrolytes disorders, diffuse peritonitis, and pneumonia. Our systematic review aimed at improving our understanding of such surgical complication, focusing on nonsurgical and surgical DSF management in patients undergoing gastric resection for gastric cancer.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were used to search all related literature.
RESULTS
The 20 included articles covered an approximately 40 years-study period (1979-2017), with a total 294 patient population. DSF diagnosis occurred between the fifth and tenth postoperative day. Main DSF-related complications were sepsis, abdominal abscess, wound infection, pneumonia, and intra-abdominal bleeding. DSF treatment was divided into four categories: conservative (101 cases), endoscopic (4 cases), percutaneous (82 cases), and surgical (157 cases). Length of hospitalization was 21-39 days, ranging from 1 to 1035 days. Healing time was 19-63 days, ranging from 1 to 1035 days. DSF-related mortality rate recorded 18.7%.
CONCLUSIONS
DSF is a rare but potentially lethal complication after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Early DSF diagnosis is crucial in reducing DSF-related morbidity and mortality. Conservative and/or endoscopic/percutaneous treatments is/are the first choice. However, if the patient clinical condition worsens, surgery becomes mandatory and duodenostomy appears to be the most effective surgical procedure.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Duodenal Diseases; Gastrectomy; Humans; Intestinal Fistula; Peritonitis; Postoperative Complications; Stomach Neoplasms; Wound Healing
PubMed: 31138190
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-019-0520-x -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Sep 2016Preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) with stenting increases complications compared with surgery without PBD. Metallic stents are considered superior to plastic stents... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) with stenting increases complications compared with surgery without PBD. Metallic stents are considered superior to plastic stents when considering stent-related complications. Aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the rate of endoscopic re-intervention before surgery and postoperative outcomes of metal versus plastic stents in patients with resectable periampullary or pancreatic head neoplasms.
METHODS
We conducted a bibliographic research using the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database, including both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Quantitative synthesis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) tests.
RESULTS
One RCT and four non-RCTs were selected, including 704 patients. Of these, 202 patients (29.5%) were treated with metal stents and 502 (70.5%) with plastic stents. The majority of patients (86.4%) had pancreatic cancer. The rate of endoscopic re-intervention after preoperative biliary drainage was significantly lower in the metal stent (3.4%) than in the plastic stent (14.8%) group (p < 0.0001). The rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was significantly lower in the meta stent group as well (5.1% versus 11.8%, p = 0.04). The rate of post-operative surgical complications and of - post-operative mortality did not differ between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the present systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that metal stent are more effective than plastic stents for PBD in patients with resectable periampullary tumors, randomized controlled trials are needed in order to confirm these data with a higher level of evidence.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures; Drainage; Humans; Jaundice, Obstructive; Metals; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Plastics; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Care; Risk Factors; Stents
PubMed: 27296728
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.05.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Background Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, mortality, complications and quality of life.Objectives The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.Search methods We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011 and 9 January 2014 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs),while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects(DARE) from The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1946 to January 2014); and EMBASE (1980 to January 2014). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010). We identified no additional studies upon updating the systematic review in 2014.Selection criteria We considered RCTs comparing CW versus PPW to be eligible if they included study participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.Main results We included six RCTs with a total of 465 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. In-hospital mortality (OR 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.40; P value 0.18), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P value 0.29) and morbidity showed no significant differences. However, we noted that operating time (MD -68.26 minutes, 95% CI -105.70 to -30.83; P value 0.0004) and intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.76 mL, 95%CI -0.96 to -0.56; P value < 0.00001) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results are associated with low quality of evidence as determined on the basis of GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.Authors' conclusions No evidence suggests relevant differences in mortality, morbidity and survival between the two operations. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future research must be undertaken to perform high-quality randomised controlled trials of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well-defined outcome parameters.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pylorus; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25387229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub5 -
Journal of Pediatric Surgery Sep 2021Surgical site infections (SSI) are a frequent and significant problem understudied in infants operated for abdominal birth defects. Different forms of SSIs exist, namely... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infections (SSI) are a frequent and significant problem understudied in infants operated for abdominal birth defects. Different forms of SSIs exist, namely wound infection, wound dehiscence, anastomotic leakage, post-operative peritonitis and fistula development. These complications can extend hospital stay, surge medical costs and increase mortality. If the incidence was known, it would provide context for clinical decision making and aid future research. Therefore, this review aims to aggregate the available literature on the incidence of different SSIs forms in infants who needed surgery for abdominal birth defects.
METHOD
The electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched in February 2020. Studies describing infectious complications in infants (under three years of age) were considered eligible. Primary outcome was the incidence of SSIs in infants. SSIs were categorized in wound infection, wound dehiscence, anastomotic leakage, postoperative peritonitis, and fistula development. Secondary outcome was the incidence of different forms of SSIs depending on the type of birth defect. Meta-analysis was performed pooling reported incidences in total and per birth defect separately.
RESULTS
154 studies, representing 11,786 patients were included. The overall pooled percentage of wound infections after abdominal birth defect surgery was 6% (95%-CI:0.05-0.07) ranging from 1% (95% CI:0.00-0.05) for choledochal cyst surgery to 10% (95%-CI:0.06-0.15) after gastroschisis surgery. Wound dehiscence occurred in 4% (95%-CI:0.03-0.07) of the infants, ranging from 1% (95%-CI:0.00-0.03) after surgery for duodenal obstruction to 6% (95%-CI:0.04-0.08) after surgery for gastroschisis. Anastomotic leakage had an overall pooled percentage of 3% (95%-CI:0.02-0.05), ranging from 1% (95%-CI:0.00-0.04) after surgery for duodenal obstruction to 14% (95% CI:0.06-0.27) after colon atresia surgery. Postoperative peritonitis and fistula development could not be specified per birth defect and had an overall pooled percentage of 3% (95%-CI:0.01-0.09) and 2% (95%-CI:0.01-0.04).
CONCLUSIONS
This review has systematically shown that SSIs are common after correction for abdominal birth defects and that the distribution of SSI differs between birth defects.
Topics: Abdomen; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 33485614
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021.01.018 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Surgical excision by removal of the head of the pancreas to decompress the obstructed ducts is one of the treatment options for people with symptomatic chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical excision by removal of the head of the pancreas to decompress the obstructed ducts is one of the treatment options for people with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis. Surgical excision of the head of the pancreas can be performed by excision of the duodenum along with the head of the pancreas (pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD)) or without excision of the duodenum (duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR)). There is currently no consensus on the method of pancreatic head resection in people with chronic pancreatitis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection versus pancreaticoduodenectomy in people with chronic pancreatitis for whom pancreatic resection is considered the main treatment option.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to June 2015 to identify randomised trials. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCT) performed in people with chronic pancreatitis undergoing pancreatic head resection, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), rate ratio (RaR), or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an available-case analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials including 292 participants met the inclusion criteria for the review. After exclusion of 23 participants mainly due to pancreatic cancer or because participants did not receive the planned treatment, a total of 269 participants (with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis involving the head of pancreas and requiring surgery) were randomly assigned to receive DPPHR (135 participants) or PD (134 participants). The trials did not report the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status of the participants. All the trials were single-centre trials and included people with and without obstructive jaundice and people with and without duodenal stenosis but did not report data separately for those with and without jaundice or those with and without duodenal stenosis. The surgical procedures compared in the five trials included DPPHR (Beger or Frey procedures, or wide local excision of the head of the pancreas) and PD (pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy or Whipple procedure). The participants were followed up for various periods of time ranging from one to 15 years. The trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low.The differences in short-term mortality (up to 90 days after surgery) (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.31 to 26.87; 369 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 2/135 (1.5%) versus PD: 0/134 (0%); very low quality evidence) or long-term mortality (maximal follow-up) (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.34; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), medium-term (three months to five years) (only a narrative summary was possible; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), or long-term quality of life (more than five years) (MD 8.45, 95% CI -0.27 to 17.18; 101 participants; 2 studies; low quality evidence), proportion of people with adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.35; 226 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 23/113 (adjusted proportion 20%) versus PD: 41/113 (36.3%); very low quality evidence), number of people with adverse events (RaR 0.95, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.12; 43 participants; 1 study; DPPHR: 12/22 (54.3 events per 100 participants) versus PD: 12/21 (57.1 events per 100 participants); very low quality evidence), proportion of people employed (maximal follow-up) (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.37; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 65/98 (adjusted proportion 69.4%) versus PD: 41/91 (45.1%); low quality evidence), incidence proportion of diabetes mellitus (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.22; 269 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 25/135 (adjusted proportion 18.6%) versus PD: 32/134 (23.9%); very low quality evidence), and prevalence proportion of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 62/98 (adjusted proportion 62.0%) versus PD: 68/91 (74.7%); very low quality evidence) were imprecise. The length of hospital stay appeared to be lower with DPPHR compared to PD and ranged between a reduction of one day and five days in the trials (208 participants; 4 studies; low quality evidence). None of the trials reported short-term quality of life (four weeks to three months), clinically significant pancreatic fistulas, serious adverse events, time to return to normal activity, time to return to work, and pain scores using a visual analogue scale.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low quality evidence suggested that DPPHR may result in shorter hospital stay than PD. Based on low or very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence of any difference in the mortality, adverse events, or quality of life between DPPHR and PD. However, the results were imprecise and further RCTs are required on this topic. Future RCTs comparing DPPHR with PD should report the severity as well as the incidence of postoperative complications and their impact on patient recovery. In such trials, participant and observer blinding should be performed and the analysis should be performed on an intention-to-treat basis to decrease the bias. In addition to the short-term benefits and harms such as mortality, surgery-related complications, quality of life, length of hospital stay, return to normal activity, and return to work, future trials should consider linkage of trial participants to health databases, social databases, and mortality registers to obtain the long-term benefits and harms of the different treatments.
Topics: Duodenum; Humans; Length of Stay; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26837472
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011521.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, postoperative mortality, complications, and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011, 9 January 2014, and 18 August 2015 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases on 18 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE (1946 to August 2015); and EMBASE (1980 to August 2015). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010); we did not update this part of the search for the 2014 and 2015 updates because the prior searches did not contribute any additional information. We identified two additional trials through the updated search in 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing CW versus PPW including participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs), and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included trials according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with a total of 512 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. Postoperative mortality (OR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.54; P = 0.32), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P = 0.29), and morbidity showed no significant differences, except of delayed gastric emptying, which significantly favoured CW (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.05 to 8.70; P = 0.04). Furthermore, we noted that operating time (MD -45.22 minutes, 95% CI -74.67 to -15.78; P = 0.003), intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.32 L, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.03; P = 0.03), and red blood cell transfusion (MD -0.47 units, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.07; P = 0.02) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results were associated with low-quality evidence based on GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests no relevant differences in mortality, morbidity, and survival between the two operations. However, some perioperative outcome measures significantly favour the PPW procedure. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future high-quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions based on well-defined outcome parameters are required.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Female; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Male; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pylorus; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26905229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub6 -
Journal of Vascular and Interventional... May 2018To compare postoperative complications in patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy after either endoscopic or percutaneous biliary drain (BD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Is Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage Better than Endoscopic Drainage in the Management of Jaundiced Patients Awaiting Pancreaticoduodenectomy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
To compare postoperative complications in patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy after either endoscopic or percutaneous biliary drain (BD).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Data from studies comparing the rate of postoperative complications in patients who underwent endoscopic BD or percutaneous BD before pancreatoduodenectomy were extracted independently by 2 investigators. The primary outcome compared in the meta-analysis was the risk of postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes were the risks of procedure-related complications, postoperative mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula, severe complications, and wound infection. For dichotomous variables, the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies, including 2334 patients (501 in the percutaneous BD group and 1833 in the endoscopic group), met the inclusion criteria. Postoperative and procedure-related complication rates were significantly lower in the percutaneous BD group (OR = .7, 95% CI = .52-.94, P = .02 and OR = .44, 95% CI = .23-.84, P = .01, respectively). No significant differences were observed when severe postoperative complications, postoperative mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula, and wound infection rates were compared.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients awaiting pancreatoduodenectomy, preoperative percutaneous BD is associated with fewer procedure-related or postoperative complications than endoscopic drain.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Cholangiocarcinoma; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Drainage; Duodenal Neoplasms; Endoscopy; Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 29548873
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.12.027 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Pancreatoduodenectomy is a surgical procedure used to treat diseases of the pancreatic head and, less often, the duodenum. The most common disease treated is cancer, but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatoduodenectomy is a surgical procedure used to treat diseases of the pancreatic head and, less often, the duodenum. The most common disease treated is cancer, but pancreatoduodenectomy is also used for people with traumatic lesions and chronic pancreatitis. Following pancreatoduodenectomy, the pancreatic stump must be connected with the small bowel where pancreatic juice can play its role in food digestion. Pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) and pancreatogastrostomy (PG) are surgical procedures commonly used to reconstruct the pancreatic stump after pancreatoduodenectomy. Both of these procedures have a non-negligible rate of postoperative complications. Since it is unclear which procedure is better, there are currently no international guidelines on how to reconstruct the pancreatic stump after pancreatoduodenectomy, and the choice is based on the surgeon's personal preference.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pancreaticogastrostomy compared to pancreaticojejunostomy on postoperative pancreatic fistula in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 30 September 2016), Ovid Embase (1974 to 30 September 2016) and CINAHL (1982 to 30 September 2016). We also searched clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) and screened references of eligible articles and systematic reviews on this subject. There were no language or publication date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the clinical outcomes of PJ compared to PG in people undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed descriptive analyses of the included RCTs for the primary (rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula and mortality) and secondary outcomes (length of hospital stay, rate of surgical re-intervention, overall rate of surgical complications, rate of postoperative bleeding, rate of intra-abdominal abscess, quality of life, cost analysis). We used a random-effects model for all analyses. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (using PG as the reference) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as a measure of variability.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs that enrolled a total of 1629 participants. The characteristics of all studies matched the requirements to compare the two types of surgical reconstruction following pancreatoduodenectomy. All studies reported incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (the main complication) and postoperative mortality.Overall, the risk of bias in included studies was high; only one included study was assessed at low risk of bias.There was little or no difference between PJ and PG in overall risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (PJ 24.3%; PG 21.4%; RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.62; 7 studies; low-quality evidence). Inclusion of studies that clearly distinguished clinically significant pancreatic fistula resulted in us being uncertain whether PJ improved the risk of pancreatic fistula when compared with PG (19.3% versus 12.8%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.47; very low-quality evidence). PJ probably has little or no difference from PG in risk of postoperative mortality (3.9% versus 4.8%; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34; moderate-quality evidence).We found low-quality evidence that PJ may differ little from PG in length of hospital stay (MD 1.04 days, 95% CI -1.18 to 3.27; 4 studies, N = 502) or risk of surgical re-intervention (11.6% versus 10.3%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61; 7 studies, N = 1263). We found moderate-quality evidence suggesting little difference between PJ and PG in terms of risk of any surgical complication (46.5% versus 44.5%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18; 9 studies, N = 1513). PJ may slightly improve the risk of postoperative bleeding (9.3% versus 13.8%; RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.93; low-quality evidence; 8 studies, N = 1386), but may slightly worsen the risk of developing intra-abdominal abscess (14.7% versus 8.0%; RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.81; 7 studies, N = 1121; low quality evidence). Only one study reported quality of life (N = 320); PG may improve some quality of life parameters over PJ (low-quality evidence). No studies reported cost analysis data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no reliable evidence to support the use of pancreatojejunostomy over pancreatogastrostomy. Future large international studies may shed new light on this field of investigation.
Topics: Gastrostomy; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28898386
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012257.pub2 -
BMC Gastroenterology Nov 2017Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear.
METHODS
Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = -0.54 ml; 95% CI, -0.88 ~ -0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = -3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ -2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes.
CONCLUSION
Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Common Bile Duct Diseases; Humans; Length of Stay; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Operative Time; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 29169337
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-017-0691-9 -
Angiology May 2018To confirm the advantage of in situ reconstruction (ISR) over extra-anatomic reconstruction (EAR) for aortic graft infection and determine the most appropriate conduit... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To confirm the advantage of in situ reconstruction (ISR) over extra-anatomic reconstruction (EAR) for aortic graft infection and determine the most appropriate conduit including autogenous veins, cryopreserved allografts, and synthetic prosthesis (standard, rifampicin of silver polyesters).
METHODS
A meta-analysis was conducted with rate of mortality, graft occlusion, amputation, and reinfection. A meta-regression was performed with 4 factors: patients' age, presence of prosthetic-duodenal fistula (PDF), virulent organisms, or nonvirulent organisms.
RESULTS
In situ reconstruction over EAR seems to favor all events. For the 5 conduits used for ISR, according to operative mortality, age of the patients looks to have a positive correlation only for silver polyester and no conduit present any advantage in the presence of PDF. Reinfection seems to be not significantly different for the 5 conduits, and only autogenous veins appear to have a positive correlation with infecting organisms.
CONCLUSION
In situ reconstruction may be considered as first-line treatment. Our results suggest that silver polyesters appear to be most appropriate for older patients, and in order to limit reinfection, autogenous veins are probably the most suitable conduit.
Topics: Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Prosthesis Design; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Reoperation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28578619
DOI: 10.1177/0003319717710114