-
Cancer Management and Research 2019To assess whether total pancreatectomy (TP) is as feasible, safe, and efficacious as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Major databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Science... (Review)
Review
To assess whether total pancreatectomy (TP) is as feasible, safe, and efficacious as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Major databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, were searched for studies comparing TP and PD between January 1943 and June 2018. The meta-analysis only included studies that were conducted after 2000. The primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality. Pooled odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences (WMDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed effects or random effects models. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. In total, 45 studies were included in this systematic review, and 5 non-randomized comparative studies with 786 patients (TP: 270, PD: 516) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no differences in terms of mortality (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.66-3.16; =0.36), hospital stay (WMD: -0.60, 95% CI: -1.78-0.59; =0.32) and rates of reoperation (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.55-2.31; =0.75) between the two groups. In addition, morbidity was not significantly different between the two groups (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.01-1.97; =0.05); however, the results showed that the TP group tended to have more complications than the PD group. Furthermore, the operation time (WMD: 29.56, 95% CI: 8.23-50.89; =0.007) was longer in the TP group. Blood loss (WMD: 339.96, 95% CI: 117.74-562.18; =0.003) and blood transfusion (OR: 4.86, 95% CI: 1.93-12.29; =0.0008) were more common in the TP group than in the PD group. There were no differences in the long-term survival rates between the two groups. This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that TP may not be as feasible and safe as PD. However, TP and PD may have the same efficacy.
PubMed: 31123419
DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S195726 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2022Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is widely used to remove benign or low-grade malignant neoplasms located in the pancreatic body and tail. Both splenic vessels... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is widely used to remove benign or low-grade malignant neoplasms located in the pancreatic body and tail. Both splenic vessels preserving (SVP-DP) and splenic vessels ligating (Warshaw technique [WT]) distal pancreatectomy are safe and effective methods but which technique is superior remains controversial. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent both methods.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Major databases, including PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and The Cochrane Library, were searched for studies comparing SVP-DP and the WT for spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy up to December 2021. The perioperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the SVP-DP and WT groups. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models.
RESULTS
Twenty retrospective studies with 2173 patients were analyzed. A total of 1467 (67.5%) patients underwent SVP-DP, while 706 (32.5%) patients underwent WT. Patients in the SVP-DP group had a significantly lower rate of splenic infarction (OR: 0.17; 95% CI, 0.11-0.25; P < 0.00001) and incidence of gastric varices (OR: 0.19; 95% CI, 0.11-0.32; P < 0.00001) compared to the patients in the WT group; furthermore, they had a shorter length of hospital stay (WMD: 0.71; 95% CI, -1.13 to -0.29; P = 0.0008). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of major complication, postoperative pancreatic fistula (B/C), reoperation, blood loss, or operation time.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to WT, SVP-DP should be preferred to reduce splenic infarction and gastric varices, and WT may be more suitable for large tumors. Moreover, considering the shortcomings of retrospective study, a multicenter randomized controlled study with a large sample size should be conducted to verify our results.
Topics: Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Humans; Laparoscopy; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Splenic Artery; Splenic Infarction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35605839
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106686 -
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aug 2023Limited data are available on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic total pancreatectomy (RTP). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Limited data are available on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic total pancreatectomy (RTP). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of RTP and open total pancreatectomy (OTP). We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis according to the PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. We included studies conducted through August 10, 2022, that systematically searched electronic databases and compared RTP with OTP. We retained four controlled clinical trials in the literature search, including 156 patients: 65 in the RTP group and 91 in the OTP group. There was no difference between the RTP group and OTP group in terms of mortality, severe complications, morbidity, bleeding, biliary leak, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, operative time, length of stay, harvested lymph nodes, and positive resection margin. The RTP reduces the delay of the first liquid diet, first oral diet, and out of bed. RTP is feasible and safe in selected patients. Robotic surgery allows for a quicker recovery. In cases of major vessel invasion, conversion to laparotomy should be preoperatively considered.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Postoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Robotics; Length of Stay; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36920720
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01569-z -
Journal of Hepato-biliary-pancreatic... Jun 2018While clinical outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) compared to open surgery are well examined, only few studies focus on its associated cost. The... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
While clinical outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) compared to open surgery are well examined, only few studies focus on its associated cost. The aim of this study is to evaluate cost analyses comparing MIPR to open pancreatic resection (OPR). A systematic review of the literature using PubMed of all published studies between 2000 and 2017 was performed. Studies reporting on cost of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) compared to open surgery were identified. Fourteen studies were included, eight that reported a cost comparison between LDP and open surgery and six that compared costs between LPD and open surgery. For both, LDP and LPD, operative costs were higher due to higher costs for surgical equipment. Reports suggest that lower postoperative costs for LDP and LPD could balance out the operative costs resulting in overall decreased costs for the laparoscopic compared to the open approach. Recent results show a positive trend towards cost savings for MIPR. To assess the overall benefit of MIPR compared to OPR comprehensive cost analyses and long-term quality outcomes need to be investigated.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29878696
DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.558 -
Surgery Apr 2023We sought to provide a meta-analysis and credibility assessment of available randomized controlled trials and propensity score matched studies when assessing early and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
We sought to provide a meta-analysis and credibility assessment of available randomized controlled trials and propensity score matched studies when assessing early and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy.
METHODS
The MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for pertinent literature up to June 2022. Random-effect meta-analyses were applied. Trial sequential analysis was applied to verify whether results were true- or false-positive or -negative findings.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were identified (2 randomized controlled trials and 11 propensity score matched studies). The early outcomes were assessed on 12 studies, including 4,346 patients. In this population, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy decreased postoperative stay (mean difference = 1.8 days; P = .001) and estimated blood loss (mean difference = 148 mL; P = .001), and trial sequential analysis confirmed these as true-positive findings. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy had similar operating times (P = .165), and trial sequential analysis confirmed this as a true-negative finding. Major morbidity, mortality, and readmission were similar, but results were inconclusive by trial sequential analysis. Oncologic outcomes were assessed on 5 studies, including 2,430 patients. In this population, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy showed higher R0 resection rate (OR = 1.46; P = .001) and shorter time to adjuvant therapy (mean difference 4.0 days P = .003). A survival benefit was observed at 1 year after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (OR = 1.45; P = .001), which was not confirmed at 3 years (P = .650).
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is superior to open distal pancreatectomy for most of the early outcomes analyzed. The operating time was equalized as a result of the learning curve. Results from patients with pancreatic cancer suggest at least an oncologic noninferiority of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Period; Laparoscopy; Treatment Outcome; Postoperative Complications; Length of Stay
PubMed: 36564287
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.11.029 -
International Journal of Surgery... Dec 2023Pancreatic cancer frequently involves the surrounding major arteries, preventing surgeons from making a radical excision. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) can lessen the size... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Perioperative and long-term survival outcomes of pancreatectomy with arterial resection in borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer following neoadjuvant therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer frequently involves the surrounding major arteries, preventing surgeons from making a radical excision. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) can lessen the size of local tumors and eliminate potential micrommetastases. However, systematic and evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of arterial resection (AR) after NAT in pancreatic cancer are scarce.
METHOD
A computerized search of the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and Clinicaltrials was performed to identify studies reporting the outcomes of patients who underwent pancreatectomy with AR and NAT for pancreatic cancer. Studies that reported perioperative and/or long-term results after pancreatectomy with AR and NAT were eligible for inclusion. The quality of the evidence was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form of bias tool. Data were pooled and analyzed by Stata 14.0 software.
RESULT
Nine studies with an overall sample size of 215 met our eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. All studies were retrospective studies, and the methodological quality was moderate. The pooled morbidity and mortality rates were 51% (95% CI: 41-61%; I²= 0.0%) and 2% (95% CI: 0-0.08; I²=33.3%), respectively. Meta-analysis showed that the overall R0 resection rate was 79% (CI: 70-86%, I²=15.5%). Comparative data on R0 rates of patients who underwent pancreatectomy with and without NAT showed a significant difference in favor of the former group with moderate statistical heterogeneity (Relative risk=1.21; 95% CI: 0.776-1.915; I²=48.0%). The median 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of patients who had AR were 92.3% (range: 72.7-100%), 64.8% (range: 25-78.8%), 51.6% (range: 16.7-63.6%), and 14% (range: 0-41.1%), respectively. Data on median progression-free survival ranged from 5.25 to 36.3 months, and the median overall survival ranged from 17 to 44.9 months.
CONCLUSIONS
Pancreatectomy with major AR following NAT has the potential to enhance the survival rate of patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer involving the arteries by achieving R0 resection, despite a significant risk of postoperative complications. However, to validate the feasibility and effectiveness of this procedure, prospective controlled studies are necessary to address limitations arising from small sample sizes and potential biases inherent in retrospective studies.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Arteries; Neoplasms, Second Primary
PubMed: 38259002
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000742 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Dec 2016This study aims to define the current status of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) with resection and reconstruction of the superior mesenteric/portal vein (RPD-SMV/PV). (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This study aims to define the current status of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) with resection and reconstruction of the superior mesenteric/portal vein (RPD-SMV/PV).
METHODS
Our experience on RPD, including RPD-SMV/PV, is presented along with a description of the surgical technique and a systematic review of the literature on RPD-SMV/PV.
RESULTS
We have performed 116 RPD and 14 RPD-SMV/PV. Seven additional cases of RPD-SMV/PV were identified in the literature. In our experience, RPD and RPD-SMV/PV were similar in all baseline variables, but lower mean body mass and higher prevalence of pancreatic cancer in RPD-SMV/PV. Regarding the type of vein resection, there were one type 2 (7.1 %), five type 3 (35.7 %) and eight type 4 (57.2 %) resections. As compared to RPD, RPD-SMV/PV required longer operative time, had higher median estimated blood loss, and blood transfusions were required more frequently. Incidence and severity of post-operative complications were not increased in RPD-SMV/PV, but post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage occurred more frequently after this procedure. In pancreatic cancer, RPD-SMV/PV was associated with a higher mean number of examined lymph nodes (60.0 ± 13.9 vs 44.6 ± 11.0; p = 0.02) and with the same rate of microscopic margin positivity (25.0 % vs 26.1 %). Mean length or resected vein was 23.1 ± 8.08 mm. Actual tumour infiltration was discovered in ten patients (71.4 %), reaching the adventitia in four patients (40.0 %), the media in two patients (20.0 %), and the intima in four patients (40.0 %). Literature review identified seven additional cases, all reported to have successful outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
RPD-SMV/PV is feasible in carefully selected patients. The generalization of these results remains to be demonstrated.
Topics: Humans; Mesenteric Veins; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Portal Vein; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 27553112
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-016-1499-8 -
Pancreatology : Official Journal of the... Nov 2023Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) are a cystic precursor to pancreatic cancer. IPMNs deemed clinically to be at high-risk for malignant progression are...
BACKGROUND
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) are a cystic precursor to pancreatic cancer. IPMNs deemed clinically to be at high-risk for malignant progression are frequently treated with surgical resection, and pathological examination of the pancreatectomy specimen is a key component of the clinical care of IPMN patients.
METHODS
Systematic literature reviews were conducted around eight topics of clinical relevance in the examination of pathological specimens in patients undergoing resection of IPMN.
RESULTS
This review provides updated perspectives on morphological subtyping of IPMNs, classification of intraductal oncocytic papillary neoplasms, nomenclature for high-grade dysplasia, assessment of T stage, distinction of carcinoma associated or concomitant with IPMN, role of molecular assessment of IPMN tissue, role of intraoperative assessment by frozen section, and preoperative evaluation of cyst fluid cytology.
CONCLUSIONS
This analysis provides the foundation for data-driven approaches to several challenging issues in the pathology of IPMNs.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Pancreatic Intraductal Neoplasms; Adenocarcinoma, Mucinous; Retrospective Studies; Pancreatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37604731
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2023.08.002 -
Journal of B.U.ON. : Official Journal... 2020The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy (LPD) with Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy (RDP) in terms of length of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy (LPD) with Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy (RDP) in terms of length of hospital stay (LOS), perioperative, postoperative and economic parameters.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was undertaken and data from studies fulfilling the predetermined inclusion criteria were extracted. Meta-analyses were performed to combine the results of various studies in the forms of Weighted Mean Difference (WMD), Odds Ratio (OR) and Risk Difference (RD), as appropriate.
RESULTS
A significantly lower LOS (WMD:0.75, 95%CI:0.17-1.33) and longer operative duration (WMD:-28.29, 95%CI:-49.98--6.6) for the RDP group was found. The rate of open conversion was higher in the LDP group (OR:2.38, 95%CI:1.75-3.22), while the rate of spleen preservation was lower (OR:0.49, 95%CI:0.31-0.79). No significant difference was noted in the intraoperative blood loss (WMD:34, 95%CI:-10.28-78.29), postoperative blood transfusion (OR:0.99, 95%CI:0.66-1.49) and overall morbidity analyses (OR:1.08, 95%CI:0.88-1.32). A significantly higher yield of lymph nodes was achieved in the RDP group (WMD:-2.09, 95%CI:-4.17--0.01), while no differences were found when positive resection margins (RD:0.02, 95%CI:-0.02-0.07) and specimen length (WMD:0.08, 95%CI:0.42-0.58) were considered. Finally, RDP was associated with significantly higher operative (WMD:-2733.42, 95%CI:-4189.77--1277.08) and total (WMD:-3799.68, 95%CI: -4438.39--3160.98) costs.
CONCLUSION
RDP seems to be a viable option for both benign and malignant pancreatic disorders, although there are concerns regarding economic parameters. Large randomized controlled trials will shed more light on the subject.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreatectomy; Robotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33277870
DOI: No ID Found -
International Journal of Surgery... May 2018Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS) has been widely used in the treatment of benign and low-grade pancreatic diseases. It is necessary to expand the current knowledge... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS) has been widely used in the treatment of benign and low-grade pancreatic diseases. It is necessary to expand the current knowledge on the feasibility and safety of LPS for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) by systematic reviewing the published studies and analyzing them by meta-analysis.
METHODS
Original articles compared LPS with open pancreatic surgery (OPS) for PDAC, published from January 1994 to August 2017 were searched in medical databases. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), morbidity, mortality, operation time, blood loss, transfusion, hospital stay, retrieved lymph nodes (RLNs), and survival outcomes were compared.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies with a total of 13174 patients (1705 in LPS and 11469 in OPS) were included for the meta-analysis. LPS showed less morbidity (RR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.66-0.92, P < .01), blood loss (WMD = -298.05 ml, 95% CI, -482.98∼-113.12 ml; P < .01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -2.86, 95%CI, -3.85∼-1.87; P < .01), more RLNs (WMD = 1.47, 95%CI: 0.15-2.78; P = .03) and comparable POPF (RR = 1.12, 95%CI: 0.82-1.53, P = .50), operation time (WMD = 22.23 min; 95%CI: -19.56-64.01, P = .30), and 5-year overall survival (HR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.80-1.06; P = .23) compared to OPS.
CONCLUSION
LPS can be performed safely in carefully selected patients with PADC and would improve the surgical outcomes. Considering the limitation of study design, the conclusions should be interpret cautiously and warrant to be confirmed by randomized controlled studies.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29337177
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.12.032