-
Cancers Mar 2021To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the outcome of surgical treatment for isolated local recurrence of pancreatic cancer. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the outcome of surgical treatment for isolated local recurrence of pancreatic cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science.
RESULTS
Six studies concerning 431 patients with recurrent pancreatic cancer met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis: 176 underwent redo surgery, and 255 received non-surgical treatments. Overall survival and post-recurrence survival were significantly longer in the re-resected group (ratio of means (ROM) 1.99; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.54-2.56, = 75.89%, = 0.006, and ROM = 2.05; 95% CI, 1.48-2.83, = 76.39%, = 0.002, respectively) with a median overall survival benefit of 28.7 months (mean difference (MD) 28.7; 95% CI, 10.3-47.0, = 89.27%, < 0.001) and median survival benefit of 15.2 months after re-resection (MD 15.2; 95% CI, 8.6-21.8, = 58.22%, = 0.048).
CONCLUSION
Resection of isolated pancreatic cancer recurrences is safe and feasible and may offer a survival benefit. Selection of patients and assessment of time and site of recurrence are mandatory.
PubMed: 33805716
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13061277 -
Surgical Endoscopy Sep 2016The number of published series on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has significantly increased. Robotic systems can overcome some limitations of laparoscopy.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
The number of published series on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has significantly increased. Robotic systems can overcome some limitations of laparoscopy. This study aimed to compare two techniques in distal pancreatectomy.
METHODS
Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies (up to July 2015) that compared perioperative outcomes between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). Relative risks with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated.
RESULTS
Nine studies were enrolled in this review. Four studies reported on operative time, indicating no difference between the RDP and LDP groups (WMD = 21.55, 95 % CI -65.28-108.37, P = 0.63). No significant difference between the two groups was indicated with respect to the number of patients who converted to open (OR 0.35, 95 % CI 0.11-1.13, P = 0.08), spleen preservation rate (OR 2.37, 95 % CI 0.50-11.30, P = 0.28), and transfusion rate (OR 1.30, 95 % CI 0.54-3.13, P = 0.56). In addition, no difference was indicated in the incidence of pancreatic fistulas (OR 1.05, 95 % CI 0.67-1.65, P = 0.83) and length of hospital stay between the two groups (WMD = -0.61, 95 % CI -1.40-0.19, P = 0.13).
CONCLUSIONS
RDP seems to be a safe and effective alternative to LDP. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to verify the results of this meta-analysis.
Topics: Blood Transfusion; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Spleen; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26743110
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4723-7 -
Journal of Visceral Surgery Nov 2016Over recent years, minimally invasive pancreatic resections have increasingly been reported in the literature. Even though pancreatic surgery is still considered a... (Review)
Review
Over recent years, minimally invasive pancreatic resections have increasingly been reported in the literature. Even though pancreatic surgery is still considered a challenge for surgeons due to its technical difficulties and high morbidity, the development and spread of robotic surgery has highlighted a new interest, which has induced a rapid spread of robotic approaches for pancreatic resections. This study presents a systematic review of the literature regarding robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy in order to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic pancreatic resection.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 27185566
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.04.001 -
The British Journal of Surgery Dec 2022Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly being used before surgery for localized pancreatic cancer. Given the importance of completing multimodal therapy, the aim of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly being used before surgery for localized pancreatic cancer. Given the importance of completing multimodal therapy, the aim of this study was to characterize surgical resection rates after neoadjuvant therapy as well as the reasons for, and long-term prognostic impact of, not undergoing resection.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials and high-quality retrospective studies since 2010 was performed to calculate pooled resection rates using a generalized random-effects model for potentially resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Median survival times were calculated using random-effects models for patients who did and did not undergo resection.
RESULTS
In 125 studies that met the inclusion criteria, neoadjuvant therapy consisted of chemotherapy (36.8 per cent), chemoradiation (15.2 per cent), or chemotherapy and radiation (48.0 per cent). Among 11 713 patients, the pooled resection rates were 77.4 (95 per cent c.i. 71.3 to 82.5), 60.6 (54.8 to 66.1), and 22.2 (16.7 to 29.0) per cent for potentially resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic cancer respectively. The most common reasons for not undergoing resection were distant progression for resectable and borderline resectable cancers, and local unresectability for locally advanced disease. Among 42 studies with survival data available, achieving surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy was associated with improved survival for patients with potentially resectable (median 38.5 versus 13.3 months), borderline resectable (32.3 versus 13.9 months), and locally advanced (30.0 versus 14.6 months) pancreatic cancer (P < 0.001 for all).
CONCLUSION
Although rates of surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy vary based on anatomical stage, surgery is associated with improved survival for all patients with localized pancreatic cancer. These pooled resection and survival rates may inform patient-provider decision-making and serve as important benchmarks for future prospective trials.
Topics: Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Pancreatectomy; Retrospective Studies; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Adenocarcinoma; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36346716
DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znac354 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Sep 2021Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) occurs when pancreatic enzyme activity in the intestinal lumen is insufficient for normal digestion to occur. The true incidence...
BACKGROUND
Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) occurs when pancreatic enzyme activity in the intestinal lumen is insufficient for normal digestion to occur. The true incidence and diagnosis of EPI after pancreatectomy has not been fully understood and optimized. The aim of this study was to present incidence and diagnostic criteria for EPI after pancreatectomy for cancer and provide a guide for management and optimal therapy in pancreatectomy patients with cancer.
METHODS
A comprehensive review of the literature with publication dates from 2014 to 2019 was performed. A comprehensive diagnostic and treatment algorithm was then created based on literature review and current treatment options.
RESULTS
In total, 30 studies were included, 19 combined both pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP), 9 for central pancreatectomy, and 2 others. EPI was defined subjectively without definitive testing using any of the established diagnostic studies in the majority of studies 23 (76%). Preoperative EPI was calculated to be 11.52%. Most studies assessed exocrine function at least 6 months postoperatively with four studies extending the follow-up period beyond 12 months. EPI diagnosed postoperatively at 1 month (40.27%), 3 months (30.94%), 6 months (36.06%), and 12 months (34.69%). After PD, the median prevalence of postoperative EPI was 43.14%, CP, the median prevalence was 4.85%, DP, median prevalence of postoperative EPI of 11.94%.
CONCLUSION
EPI is a frequent outcome that is often misdiagnosed or under-reported by the patient post-pancreatectomy. Given the increasing overall survival in pancreatectomy patients for cancer, surgeon awareness and assessment is critical to improving patients' overall quality of life.
Topics: Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33483914
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-020-04883-1 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2023The best approach for treating benign or low-grade malignant lesions localized in the pancreatic neck or body remains debatable. Conventional pancreatoduodenectomy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The best approach for treating benign or low-grade malignant lesions localized in the pancreatic neck or body remains debatable. Conventional pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy (DP) are associated with a risk of impairment of pancreatic function at long-term follow-up. With advances in technology and surgical skills, the use of central pancreatectomy (CP) has gradually increased.
OBJECTIVES
The objective was to compare the safety, feasibility, and short-term and long-term clinical benefits of CP and DP in matched cases.
METHODS
The PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched to identify studies published from database inception to February 2022 that compared CP and DP. This meta-analysis was performed using R software.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies matched the selection criteria, including 774 CP and 1713 DP cases. CP was significantly associated with longer operative time ( P <0.0001), less blood loss ( P <0.01), overall and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula ( P <0.0001), postoperative hemorrhage ( P <0.0001), reoperation ( P =0.0196), delayed gastric emptying ( P =0.0096), increased hospital stay ( P =0.0002), intra-abdominal abscess or effusion ( P =0.0161), higher morbidity ( P <0.0001) and severe morbidity ( P <0.0001) but with a significantly lower incidence of overall endocrine and exocrine insufficiency ( P <0.01), and new-onset and worsening diabetes mellitus ( P <0.0001) than DP.
CONCLUSIONS
CP should be considered as an alternative to DP in selected cases such as without pancreatic disease, length of the residual distal pancreas is more than 5 cm, branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula after adequate evaluation.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Retrospective Studies; Pancreas; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37300889
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000326 -
Surgery Jul 2021Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been shown recently in some randomized trials to be superior in selected perioperative outcomes compared with open resection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been shown recently in some randomized trials to be superior in selected perioperative outcomes compared with open resection when performed by experienced surgeons. However, minimally invasive pancreatic resection is associated with a long learning curve. This study aims to summarize the current evidence on the learning curve of minimally invasive pancreatic resection and define the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane database using a detailed search strategy. Studies that did not describe the learning curve were excluded from the study. Data on the method of learning curve analysis, single surgeon versus institutional learning curve, and outcome measures were extracted and analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of 32 studies were included in the pooled analysis: 12 on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, 9 on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, 12 on laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and 3 on robotic distal pancreatectomy. Sample population was comparable between laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (median 63 vs 65). Six of 12 studies and 7 of 9 studies used nonarbitrary methods of analysis in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Operating time was used as the single outcome measure in 4 of 12 studies in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and 5 of 9 studies in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Overall, there was no significant difference between the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy 34.1 [95% confidence interval 30.7-37.7] versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy 36.7 [95% confidence interval 32.9-41.0]; P = .8241) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy 25.3 [95% confidence interval 22.5-28.3] versus robotic distal pancreatectomy 20.7 [95% confidence interval 15.8-26.5]; P = .5997.) CONCLUSION: This study provides a detailed summary of existing evidence around the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic resection. There was no significant difference between the learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. These findings were limited by the retrospective nature and heterogeneity of the studies published to date.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Learning Curve; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Operative Time; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 33541746
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.11.046 -
BMC Surgery Nov 2017Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe that robotic surgery can overcome the difficulties and technical limits of LDP thanks to improved surgical manipulation and better visualization. Few studies in the literature have compared the two methods in terms of surgical and oncological outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the results of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of control studies published up to December 2016 comparing LDP and RDP. Two Reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using either the fixed-effect or the random-effect model.
RESULTS
Ten studies describing 813 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis shows that the RDP group had a significantly higher rate of spleen preservation [OR 2.89 (95% confidence interval 1.78-4.71, p < 0.0001], a lower rate of conversion to open OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12-0.92), p = 0.003] and a shorter hospital stay [MD -0.74; (95% CI -1.34 -0.15), p = 0.01] but a higher cost than the LDP group, while other surgical outcomes did not differ between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggests that the RDP procedure is safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP. However, even if the RDP has a higher cost compared to LDP, it increases the rate of spleen preservation, reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery and is associated to shorter length of hospital stay.
Topics: Conversion to Open Surgery; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Period; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Spleen; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29121885
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-017-0301-3 -
The British Journal of Surgery Jan 2015Established closure techniques for the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy include stapler, suture and anastomotic closure. However, controversy remains... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Established closure techniques for the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy include stapler, suture and anastomotic closure. However, controversy remains regarding the ideal technique; therefore, the aim of this study was to compare closure techniques and risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out according to PRISMA guidelines for studies published before January 2014 that compared at least two closure techniques for the pancreatic remnant in distal pancreatectomy. A random-effects model was constructed using weighted odds ratios (ORs).
RESULTS
Thirty-seven eligible studies matched the inclusion criteria and 5252 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy were included. The primary outcome measure, the POPF rate, ranged 0 from to 70 per cent. Meta-analysis of the 31 studies comparing stapler versus suture closure showed that the stapler technique had a significantly lower rate of POPF, with a combined OR of 0.77 (95 per cent c.i. 0.61 to 0.98; P = 0.031). Anastomotic closure was associated with a significantly lower POPF rate than suture closure (OR 0.55, 0.31 to 0.98; P = 0.042). Combined stapler and suture closure had significantly lower POPF rates than suture closure alone, but no significant difference compared with stapler closure alone.
CONCLUSION
The use of stapler closure or anastomotic closure for the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy significantly reduces POPF rates compared with suture closure. The combination of stapler and suture closure shows superiority over suture closure alone.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Anastomosis, Surgical; Epidemiologic Methods; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Postoperative Complications; Surgical Stapling; Suture Techniques
PubMed: 25388952
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9653 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Oct 2023Postoperative complications following distal pancreatectomy (DP) are common, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). In order to design adequate prophylactic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative complications following distal pancreatectomy (DP) are common, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). In order to design adequate prophylactic strategies, it is of relevance to determine the costs of these complications. An overview of the literature on the costs of complications following DP is lacking.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (inception until 1 August 2022). The primary outcome was the costs (i.e. cost differential) of major morbidity, individual complications and prolonged hospital stay. Quality of non-RCTs were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Costs were compared with the use of Purchasing Power parity. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021223019).
RESULTS
Overall, seven studies were included with 854 patients after DP. The rate POPF grade B/C varied between 13% and 27% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 18,389 (based on two studies). The rate of severe morbidity varied between 13% and 38% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 19,281 (based on five studies).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review reported considerable costs for POPF grade B/C and severe morbidity after DP. Prospective databases and studies should report on all complications in a uniform matter to better display the economic burden of complications of DP.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula; Postoperative Complications; Morbidity; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37391314
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.03.007