-
Translational Gastroenterology and... 2019Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal malignancies with a dismal prognosis and survival. The curative effects of venous resection (VR) in pancreatic... (Review)
Review
Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal malignancies with a dismal prognosis and survival. The curative effects of venous resection (VR) in pancreatic cancer remain controversial. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The overall postoperative complications, perioperative mortality, histopathology, and long-term survival were compared between patients undergoing pancreatectomy combined with (VR+ group) or without (VR- group) VR. Forty-one studies were included in the systematic review. Pancreatectomy combined with VR required longer operation time and led to increased perioperative blood loss, whereas postoperative complications were similar. Patients in the VR+ group showed larger tumors and reduced R0 rates. Regarding long-term survival, patients with VR+ seemed to have impaired 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival. Based on our results, VR in pancreatic cancer is a safe and feasible procedure. Given the fact that patients have miserable outcomes and survival in the palliative setting alone, extended resection including VR is required for the purpose of achieving radical resection.
PubMed: 31304423
DOI: 10.21037/tgh.2019.06.01 -
Annals of Surgery Feb 2024To provide procedure-specific estimates of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding after abdominal surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of the Procedure-specific Risks of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General Abdominal, Colorectal, Upper Gastrointestinal, and Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery.
OBJECTIVE
To provide procedure-specific estimates of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding after abdominal surgery.
BACKGROUND
The use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis represents a trade-off that depends on VTE and bleeding risks that vary between procedures; their magnitude remains uncertain.
METHODS
We identified observational studies reporting procedure-specific risks of symptomatic VTE or major bleeding after abdominal surgery, adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up, and estimated cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery, stratified by VTE risk groups, and rated evidence certainty.
RESULTS
After eligibility screening, 285 studies (8,048,635 patients) reporting on 40 general abdominal, 36 colorectal, 15 upper gastrointestinal, and 24 hepatopancreatobiliary surgery procedures proved eligible. Evidence certainty proved generally moderate or low for VTE and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk of VTE varied substantially among procedures: in general abdominal surgery from a median of <0.1% in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to a median of 3.7% in open small bowel resection, in colorectal from 0.3% in minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy to 10.0% in emergency open total proctocolectomy, and in upper gastrointestinal/hepatopancreatobiliary from 0.2% in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to 6.8% in open distal pancreatectomy for cancer.
CONCLUSIONS
VTE thromboprophylaxis provides net benefit through VTE reduction with a small increase in bleeding in some procedures (eg, open colectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy), whereas the opposite is true in others (eg, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and elective groin hernia repairs). In many procedures, thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding VTE and bleeding.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Colorectal Neoplasms; Hemorrhage; Postoperative Complications; Thrombosis; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 37551583
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006059 -
Gland Surgery May 2021Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal tumours in Western society. Pancreatic surgery can be considered a challenge for open and laparoscopic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal tumours in Western society. Pancreatic surgery can be considered a challenge for open and laparoscopic surgeons, even if the accuracy of gland dissection, due to the close relationship between pancreas, the portal vein, and mesenteric vessels, besides the reconstructive phase (in pancreaticoduodenectomy), lead to significant difficulties for laparoscopic technique. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery changed utterly with the development of robotic surgery. However, this review aims to make more clarity on the influence of robotic surgery on long-term morbidity.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify and analyze studies published from November 2011 to September 2020 concerning robotic pancreatic surgery. The following terms were used to perform the search: "long term morbidity robotic pancreatic surgery".
RESULTS
Eighteen articles included in the study were published between November 2011 and September 2020. The review included 2041 patients who underwent robotic pancreatic surgery, mainly for a malignant tumour. The two most common robotic surgical procedures adopted were the robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). In two studies, patients were divided into groups; on the one hand, those who underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), on the other hand, those who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The remaining items included surgical approach such as robotic middle pancreatectomy (RMP), robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic dissection (RALPD), robotic enucleation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.
CONCLUSIONS
Comparison between robotic surgery and open surgery lead to evidence of different advantages of the robotic approach. A multidisciplinary team and a surgical centre at high volume are essential for better postoperative morbidity and mortality.
PubMed: 34164320
DOI: 10.21037/gs-21-64 -
Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.World Journal of Surgery Apr 2021Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) for pancreatic head or periampullary lesions is being utilized with increasing frequency. However, few data are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) for pancreatic head or periampullary lesions is being utilized with increasing frequency. However, few data are available for the elderly. The objective of this study is to assess the safety and feasibility of MIPD in elderly population, by making a comparison with conventional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and with non-elderly population.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search to identify all eligible studies in Cochrane Library, Ovid, and PubMed from their inception up to April 2020.
RESULTS
Seven retrospective studies involving 2727 patients were included. Of these, 3 compared MIPD and OPD in elderly patients, 2 compared MIPD in elderly and non-elderly patients, and 2 included both outcomes. Compared to those with OPD, elderly patients who underwent MIPD were associated with less 90-day mortality (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.97; P = 0.04) and fewer delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.88; P = 0.01). On the other hand, no significant difference was observed in terms of 30-day mortality, major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C), postoperative hemorrhage, reoperation, 30-day readmission, and operative time. For patients who have treated with MIPD, elderly did not reveal worse outcomes than non-elderly.
CONCLUSION
MIPD is a safe and feasible procedure for select elderly patients if performed by experienced surgeons from high-volume pancreatic surgery centers. However, further randomized studies are required to confirm this.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Laparoscopy; Middle Aged; Operative Time; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 33458781
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-020-05945-w -
International Journal of Surgery... Apr 2016Conventional pancreatic resections for pancreatic neck and body diseases include pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy, and total... (Review)
Review
Conventional pancreatic resections for pancreatic neck and body diseases include pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy, and total pancreatectomy. Recent studies have reported encouraging results of non-traditional pancreatic resections, including central pancreatectomy (CP), for central pancreatic disease. This surgical approach offers the potentials of low postoperative morbidity and preservation of metabolic functions. This study performs a systematic review on CP. A comprehensive literature search was conducted, for the period 1992-2015, on three worldwide databases: PubMed, Scopus, ISI-Web of Knowledge. We focused on indications, morbidity and mortality of this surgical procedure. The review shows that CP is particularly suitable for small-medium size diseases localized into the pancreatic body. This procedure is associated with an increased postoperative morbidity but an excellent postoperative pancreatic function. CP is a safe and effective procedure when performed following the right indications.
Topics: Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 26708862
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.12.046 -
Pancreas Jan 2018Many pancreatic surgeons continue to use intraperitoneal drains, but others have limited or avoided their use, believing this improves outcomes. We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Many pancreatic surgeons continue to use intraperitoneal drains, but others have limited or avoided their use, believing this improves outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature assessing outcomes in pancreatectomy without drains, selective drainage, and early drain removal. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases and conducted a systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing routine intra-abdominal drainage versus no drainage, selective drain use, and early versus late drain removal after pancreatectomy, with major complications as the primary outcome. A meta-analysis of the literature assessing routine use of drains was conducted using the random-effects model. A total of 461 articles met search criteria from PubMed (168 articles), Embase (263 articles), and the Cochrane Library (30 articles). After case reports and articles without primary data on complications were excluded, 14 studies were identified for systematic review. Definitive evidence-based recommendations cannot be made regarding the management of drains following pancreatectomy because of limitations in the available literature. Based on available evidence, the most conservative approach, pending further data, is routine placement of a drain and early removal unless the patient's clinical course or drain fluid amylase concentration suggests a developing fistula.
Topics: Device Removal; Drainage; Evidence-Based Practice; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29232341
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000961 -
Cancers Apr 2021Major vascular invasion represents one of the most frequent reasons to consider pancreatic adenocarcinomas unresectable, although in the last decades, demolitive... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Major vascular invasion represents one of the most frequent reasons to consider pancreatic adenocarcinomas unresectable, although in the last decades, demolitive surgeries such as distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR) have become a therapeutical option.
METHODS
A meta-analysis of studies comparing DP-CAR and standard DP in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma was conducted. Moreover, a systematic review of studies analyzing oncological, postoperative and survival outcomes of DP-CAR was conducted.
RESULTS
Twenty-four articles were selected for the systematic review, whereas eleven were selected for the meta-analysis, for a total of 1077 patients. Survival outcomes between the two groups were similar in terms of 1 year overall survival (OS) (odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.31, = 0.24). Patients who received DP-CAR were more likely to have T4 tumors (OR 28.45, 95% CI 10.46 to 77.37, < 0.00001) and positive margins (R+) (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.17, = 0.008). Overall complications (OR, 1.72, 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.58, = 0.008) were more frequent in the DP-CAR group, whereas rates of pancreatic fistula (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.65, = 0.41) were similar.
CONCLUSIONS
DP-CAR was not associated with higher mortality compared to standard DP; however, overall morbidity was higher. Celiac axis involvement should no longer be considered a strict contraindication to surgery in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Considering the different baseline tumor characteristics, DP-CAR may need to be compared with palliative therapies instead of standard DP.
PubMed: 33921838
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13081967 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Feb 2016Studies have been published comparing spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) with distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS), but the results remain... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Studies have been published comparing spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) with distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS), but the results remain inconsistent. The aim of this study was to compare SPDP with DPS by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Literature searches of the Medline/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were performed to identify relevant studies published before April 30,2015. Perioperative outcomes of SPDP and DPS were evaluated. The meta-analysis was performed in random- or fixed-effects models, as appropriate. A subanalysis was conducted to compare the two techniques of splenic preservation: splenic vessel preservation (SVP) and Warshaw technique (WT).
RESULTS
Eighteen studies and 1156 patients were included in the comparison between SPDP and DPS. A total of 502 of these patients underwent SPDP and 654 underwent DPS. Meta-analysis showed the SPDP group had significantly fewer infectious complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.57, P = 0.006), less operative blood loss (P<0.0001), lower overall morbidity rate (OR 0.66, P = 0.002), and lower clinical pancreatic fistula rate (OR 0.42, P = 0.002) than the DPS group. Subanalysis indicated the SVP group had significantly lower rate of spleen infarction (OR 0.12, P<0.00001) and fewer secondary splenectomies (OR 0.13, P = 0.008) than the WT group.
CONCLUSIONS
SPDP was a safe procedure associated with better short-term outcomes than DPS. SVP could provide more sufficient blood perfusion for the conserved spleen than WT. However, the evidence is limited, and more randomized controlled trials are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Splenectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26493758
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4870-z -
Surgery Jan 2015Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is regarded as a feasible and safe surgical alternative to open distal pancreatectomy for lesions of the pancreatic tail and body. The... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is regarded as a feasible and safe surgical alternative to open distal pancreatectomy for lesions of the pancreatic tail and body. The aim of the present systematic review was to provide recommendations for clinical practice and research on the basis of surgical morbidity, such as pancreas fistula, delayed gastric empting, safety, and clinical significance of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for malignant and nonmalignant diseases of the pancreas.
METHODS
A systematic literature search (MEDLINE) was performed to identify all types of studies comparing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy. Random effects meta-analyses were calculated after critical appraisal of the included studies and presented as odds ratios or mean differences each with corresponding 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
A total of 4,148 citations were retrieved initially; available data of 29 observational studies (3,701 patients overall) were included in the meta-analyses. Five systematic reviews on the same topic were found and critically appraised. Meta-analyses showed superiority of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in terms of blood loss, time to first oral intake, and hospital stay. All other parameters of operative morbidity and safety showed no difference. Data on oncologic radicality and effectiveness are limited.
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy seems to be a safe and effective alternative to open distal pancreatectomy. No more nonrandomized trials are needed within this context. A large, randomized trial is warranted and should focus on oncologic effectiveness, defined end points, and cost-effectiveness.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25482464
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.06.081 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Dec 2022Emergency pancreaticoduodenectomy (EPD) is an uncommon surgical procedure; usually, it is performed in traumatic cases, with non-traumatic indications being very rare.... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Emergency pancreaticoduodenectomy (EPD) is an uncommon surgical procedure; usually, it is performed in traumatic cases, with non-traumatic indications being very rare. Our review aimed to offer a comprehensive descriptive overview of the characteristics of EPD in non-traumatic settings.
METHODS
Our study is a review of individual participant data. PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar and Embase databases were searched. The last search was conducted in March 2022; studies that reported EPD for non-traumatic indications were included in the analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-six articles were identified, twenty-five providing individual participant data; 17 articles (68%) were case reports. One article was a large retrospective study on the NSQIP (American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement) database, which enrolled 409 patients that underwent EPD for malignant causes. From the other studies, we extracted individual participant data for a total of 66 patients. The patients were divided in subgroups, based on the indication for surgery: malignant causes (39.39%), uncontrollable bleeding (19.69%), iatrogenic injuries (30.3%), perforations (4.54%), or ischemic causes (6.06%). The postoperative morbidity was higher for the perforation subgroup. Postoperative pancreatic fistula is the most common complication reported (21.21%); higher rates were reported in the malignant and bleeding subgroups, with no special mention of this complication in the NSQIP database study. Mortality rate was 10.3% in the NSQIP database and higher, 19.69% in the 66-patient cohort; the highest mortality rates were registered in the perforation and ischemic subgroup.
CONCLUSION
EPD is a complex surgical intervention, with important associated morbidity and mortality rates, higher than that in elective settings, although it can be a life-saving procedure in selected cases and should be performed only in high-experience centres.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Retrospective Studies; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36280612
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-022-02702-6