-
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Jul 2020The number of pancreatic resections due to cancers is increasing. While concomitant venous resections are routinely performed in specialized centers, arterial resections... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The number of pancreatic resections due to cancers is increasing. While concomitant venous resections are routinely performed in specialized centers, arterial resections are still controversial. Nevertheless they are performed in patients presenting with locally advanced tumors. Our aim was to summarize currently available literature comparing peri-operative and long-term outcomes of arterial and non-arterial pancreatic resections.
METHODS
We included studies comparing pancreatic operations with and without concomitant arterial resection. Inclusion criteria were morbidity or mortality. Studies additionally reporting venous resections with no possibility of excluding this data during the extraction were discarded.
RESULTS
The initial search yielded 1651 records. Finally, 19 studies were included in the analysis involving 2710 patients. Arterial resection was associated with a greater risk of death(RR: 4.09; p < 0.001) and complications (RR: 1.4; p = 0.01). There were no differences in the rate of pancreatic fistula, biliary fistula rate, cardiopulmonary complications, length of hospital stay and non-R0 rate. Oncologically, patients after arterial resection were at higher risk of worse 3-year survival.
CONCLUSION
Arterial resection in pancreatic cancer is associated with an increased risk of mortality and complications in comparison to standard non-arterial resections. Nevertheless, arterial resection may become a viable treatment for selected patients in high volume centers.
Topics: Arteries; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Veins
PubMed: 32360186
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.04.005 -
Anticancer Research Jul 2022Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is gaining popularity. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND/AIM
Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is gaining popularity. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after minimally invasive versus open procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Following the PRISMA statement, literature research was conducted focusing on papers comparing the incidence of POPF after open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) versus minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD).
RESULTS
Twenty-one papers were included in this meta-analysis, for a total of 4,448 patients. A total of 2,456 patients (55.2%) underwent OPD, while 1,992 (44.8%) underwent MIPD. Age, ASA score III patients, incidence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and duct diameter were significantly lower in the MIPD group. No statistically significant differences were found between the OPD and MIPD regarding the incidence of major complications (15.6% vs. 17.0%, respectively, p=0.55), mortality (3.7% vs. 2.4%, p=0.81), and POPF rate (14.3% vs. 12.9%, p=0.25).
CONCLUSION
MIPD and OPD had comparable rates of postoperative complications, postoperative mortality, and POPF.
Topics: Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 35790274
DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15817 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jan 2015Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is gaining momentum, but there is still uncertainty regarding its safety, reproducibility, and oncologic appropriateness. This... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is gaining momentum, but there is still uncertainty regarding its safety, reproducibility, and oncologic appropriateness. This review assesses the current status of LPD.
METHODS
Our literature review was conducted in Pubmed. Articles written in English containing five or more LPD were selected.
RESULTS
Twenty-five articles matched the review criteria. Out of a total of 746 LPD, 341 were reported between 1997 and 2011 and 405 (54.2 %) between 2012 and June 1, 2013. Pure laparoscopy (PL) was used in 386 patients (51.7 %), robotic assistance (RA) in 234 (31.3 %), laparoscopic assistance (LA) in 121 (16.2 %), and hand assistance in 5 (0.6 %). PL was associated with shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, and lower rate of pancreatic fistula (vs LA and RA). LA was associated with shorter operative time (vs RA), but with higher blood loss and increased incidence of pancreatic fistula (vs PL and RA). Conversion to open surgery was required in 64 LPD (9.1 %). Operative time averaged 464.3 min (338-710) and estimated blood 320.7 mL (74-642). Cumulative morbidity was 41.2 %, and pancreatic fistula was reported in 22.3 % of patients (4.5-52.3 %). Mean length of hospital stay was 13.6 days (7-23), showing geographic variability (21.9 days in Europe, 13.0 days in Asia, and 9.4 days in the US). Operative mortality was 1.9 %, including one intraoperative death. No difference was noted in conversion rate, incidence of pancreatic fistula, morbidity, and mortality when comparing results from larger (≥30 LPD) and smaller (≤29 LPD) series. Pathology demonstrated ductal adenocarcinoma in 30.6 % of the specimens, other malignant tumors in 51.7 %, and benign tumor/disease in 17.5 %. The mean number of lymph nodes examined was 14.4 (7-32), and the rate of microscopically positive tumor margin was 4.4 %.
CONCLUSIONS
In selected patients, operated on by expert laparoscopic pancreatic surgeons, LPD is feasible and safe.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Conversion to Open Surgery; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Morbidity; Operative Time; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 25125092
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3670-z -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Feb 2022Central pancreatectomy is usually performed to excise lesions of the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. In the last decade, thanks to the advent of novel... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Central pancreatectomy is usually performed to excise lesions of the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. In the last decade, thanks to the advent of novel technologies, surgeons have started to perform this procedure robotically. This review aims to appraise the results and outcomes of robotic central pancreatectomies (RCP) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web Of Science identified studies reporting outcomes of RCP. Pooled prevalence rates of postoperative complications and mortality were computed using random-effect modelling.
RESULTS
Thirteen series involving 265 patients were included. In all cases but one, RCP was performed to excise benign or low-grade tumours. Clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 42.3% of patients. While overall complications were reported in 57.5% of patients, only 9.4% had a Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III. Re-operation was necessary in 0.7% of the patients. New-onset diabetes occurred postoperatively in 0.3% of patients and negligible mortality and open conversion rates were observed.
CONCLUSION
RCP is safe and associated with low perioperative mortality and well preserved postoperative pancreatic function, although burdened by high overall morbidity and POPF rates.
Topics: Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 34625342
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.09.014 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology May 2015To investigate whether prophylactic abdominal drainage is necessary after pancreatic resection. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To investigate whether prophylactic abdominal drainage is necessary after pancreatic resection.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to obtain relevant articles published before January 2014. Publications were retrieved if they met the selection criteria. The outcomes of interest included: mortality, morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-PF), abdominal abscess, reoperation rate, the rate of interventional radiology drainage, and the length of hospital stay. Subgroup analyses were also performed for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and for distal pancreatectomy. Begg's funnel plot and the Egger regression test were employed to assess potential publication bias.
RESULTS
Nine eligible studies involving a total of 2794 patients were identified and included in this meta-analysis. Of the included patients, 1373 received prophylactic abdominal drainage. A fixed-effects model meta-analysis showed that placement of prophylactic drainage did not have beneficial effects on clinical outcomes, including morbidity, POPF, CR-PF, reoperation, interventional radiology drainage, and length of hospital stay (Ps > 0.05). In addition, prophylactic drainage did not significantly increase the risk of abdominal abscess. Overall analysis showed that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage resulted in higher mortality after pancreatectomy (OR = 1.56; 95%CI: 0.93-2.92). Subgroup analysis of PD showed similar results to those in the overall analysis. Elimination of prophylactic abdominal drainage after PD led to a significant increase in mortality (OR = 2.39; 95%CI: 1.22-4.69; P = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection is still necessary, though more evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing prophylactic drainage after PD and distal pancreatectomy are needed.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Chi-Square Distribution; Drainage; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Reoperation; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 25987799
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i18.5719 -
Fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic surgery. Fibrin sealants have...
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic surgery. Fibrin sealants have been used in some centres to reduce POPF rate. However, the use of fibrin sealant during pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of fibrin sealant use for the prevention of POPF (grade B or C) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery compared to no fibrin sealant use.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and five trials registers on 09 March 2023, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fibrin sealant (fibrin glue or fibrin sealant patch) versus control (no fibrin sealant or placebo) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs, randomising 1989 participants, comparing fibrin sealant use versus no fibrin sealant use for different locations: stump closure reinforcement (eight trials), pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement (five trials), or main pancreatic duct occlusion (two trials). Six RCTs were carried out in single centres; two in dual centres; and six in multiple centres. One RCT was conducted in Australia; one in Austria; two in France; three in Italy; one in Japan; two in the Netherlands; two in South Korea; and two in the USA. The mean age of the participants ranged from 50.0 years to 66.5 years. All RCTs were at high risk of bias. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic stump closure reinforcement after distal pancreatectomy We included eight RCTs involving 1119 participants: 559 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 560 to the control group after distal pancreatectomy. Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the rate of POPF (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.21; 5 studies, 1002 participants; low-certainty evidence) and overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.48; 4 studies, 893 participants; low-certainty evidence). After fibrin sealant use, approximately 199 people (155 to 256 people) out of 1000 developed POPF compared with 212 people out of 1000 when no fibrin sealant was used. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1051 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and total length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.99 days, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.82; 2 studies, 371 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Fibrin sealant use may reduce the reoperation rate slightly (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.90; 3 studies, 623 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in five studies (732 participants), and there were no serious adverse events related to fibrin sealant use (low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report quality of life or cost-effectiveness. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement after pancreaticoduodenectomy We included five RCTs involving 519 participants: 248 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 271 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on the rate of POPF (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.48; 3 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (Peto OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.06; 5 studies, 517 participants; very low-certainty evidence), reoperation rate (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.66; 3 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and total hospital cost (MD -1489.00 US dollars, 95% CI -3256.08 to 278.08; 1 study, 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). After fibrin sealant use, approximately 130 people (70 to 240 people) out of 1000 developed POPF compared with 97 people out of 1000 when no fibrin sealant was used. Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference both in overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19; 4 studies, 447 participants; low-certainty evidence) and in total length of hospital stay (MD -0.33 days, 95% CI -2.30 to 1.63; 4 studies, 447 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in two studies (194 participants), and there were no serious adverse events related to fibrin sealant use (very low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report quality of life. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic duct occlusion after pancreaticoduodenectomy We included two RCTs involving 351 participants: 188 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 163 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality (Peto OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.13; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.02; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and reoperation rate (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the total length of hospital stay (median 16 to 17 days versus 17 days; 2 studies, 351 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in one study (169 participants; low-certainty evidence): more participants developed diabetes mellitus when fibrin sealants were applied to pancreatic duct occlusion, both at three months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 10.8% control group; 29 participants versus 9 participants) and 12 months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 14.5% control group; 29 participants versus 12 participants). The studies did not report POPF, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current available evidence, fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the rate of POPF in people undergoing distal pancreatectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on the rate of POPF in people undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. The effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality is uncertain in people undergoing either distal pancreatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Fibrin Tissue Adhesive; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37335216
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009621.pub5 -
The Surgeon : Journal of the Royal... Aug 2014Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is a complex procedure, offered to selected patients at institutions highly experienced with the procedure. It is still... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is a complex procedure, offered to selected patients at institutions highly experienced with the procedure. It is still not clear if this approach may enhance patient recovery and reduce postoperative complications comparing to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), as demonstrated for other abdominal procedures.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD. Perioperative outcomes (e.g., morbidity and mortality, pancreatic fistula rates, blood loss) constituted the study end points. Metaanalyses were performed using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
For the metaanalysis, 8 studies including 204 patients undergoing MIPD and 419 patients undergoing OPD were considered suitable. The patients in the two groups were similar with respect to age, sex and histological diagnosis, and different with respect to tumor size, rate of pylorus preservation, and type of pancreatic anastomosis. There were no statistically significant differences between MIPD and OPD regarding development of delayed gastric emptying (DGE), pancreatic fistula, wound infection, or rates of reoperation and overall mortality. MIDP resulted in lower post-operative complication rates, less intra-operative blood loss, shorter hospital stays, lower blood transfusion rates, higher numbers of harvested lymph nodes, and improved negative margin status rates. However, MIPD was associated with longer operating times when compared to OPD.
CONCLUSIONS
The MIPD procedure is feasible, safe, and effective in selected patients. MIPD may have some potential advantages over OPD, and should be performed and further developed by use in selected patients at highly experienced medical centers.
Topics: Duodenal Diseases; Humans; Laparotomy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24525404
DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2014.01.006 -
International Journal of Surgery... Oct 2015This study to evaluate the utility of drain fluid amylase as a predictor of PF in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery based on the International Study Group of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
This study to evaluate the utility of drain fluid amylase as a predictor of PF in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery based on the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula definitions of pancreatic fistula.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was carried out using Pubmed (Medline), Embase, Web of science and Cochrane database for clinical trials, which studied DFA as a diagnostic marker for pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery. Sensitivity, specificity and the diagnostic odds ratios with 95% confidence interval were calculated for each study. Summary receiver-operating curves were conducted and the area under the curve was evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of drain fluid amylase Day 1 for the diagnosis of postoperative pancreatic fistula were 81% and 87%, respectively (area under the curve was 0.897, diagnostic odds ratios was 16.83 and 95%CI was 12.66-22.36), the pooled sensitivity and specificity of drain fluid amylase Day 3 for the diagnosis of postoperative pancreatic fistula were 56% and 79%, respectively (area under the curve was 0.668, diagnostic odds ratios was 3.26 and 95%CI was 1.83-5.82) CONCLUSIONS: The drain fluid amylase Day 1, instead of drain fluid amylase Day 3, may be a useful criterion for the early identification of postoperative pancreatic fistula, and a value of drain fluid amylase Day 1 over than 1300 U/L was a risk factor of pancreatic fistula. And the diagnostic accuracy and the proposed cut-off levels of drain fluid amylase Day 1 in predicting the postoperative pancreatic fistula will have to be validated by multicenter prospective studies.
Topics: Amylases; Drainage; Humans; Odds Ratio; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Risk Factors; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 26211439
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.07.007 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Feb 2016The appropriate surgical strategy in patients with small pancreatic lesions of low malignant potential, such as pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, remains unknown.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The appropriate surgical strategy in patients with small pancreatic lesions of low malignant potential, such as pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, remains unknown. Increasing reports suggest limited pancreatic surgery may be a safe option for parenchymal preservation.
METHODS
PubMed and MEDLINE were searched in the English literature for studies from January 2000 to February 2015 examining enucleation for pancreatic lesions that were single-arm and comparative studies (versus resection). Single-arm enucleation studies were systematically reviewed. Comparative studies were included for meta-analysis. Endpoints include safety, complications, mortality, survival, and parenchymal-related outcomes.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies comprising of 1101 patients undergoing enucleation were included. Seven studies were comparative studies of enucleation and standardized pancreatic resection. Enucleation was a shorter procedure (pooled mean differences (MD) = 109, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 105-114; Z = 46.37; P < 0.001) associated with less blood loss (pooled MD = 314, 95 % CI 297-330; Z = 37.47; P < 0.001). Both enucleation and resection had similar mortality and complication rates, but the rate of pancreatic fistula (all grades) (pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.99; 95 % CI 1.2-3.4; Z = 2.57; P = 0.01] and rate of pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) (pooled OR = 1.58; 95 % CI 1.0-2.5; Z = 2.06; P = 0.04) was higher in the enucleation group. Enucleation resulted in lower rates of endocrine (pooled OR = 0.22; 95 % CI 0.1-0.5; Z = 3.21; P = 0.001) and exocrine (pooled OR = 0.07; 95 % CI 0.02-0.2; Z = 5.08; P < 0.001) insufficiency. The median 5-year survival was 95 % (range 93-98) and 84 % (range 79-90).
CONCLUSIONS
Enucleation appears to be a safe procedure and achieves parenchymal preservation for small pancreatic lesions of low malignant potential. Its oncologic efficacy compared with standardized pancreatic resection with respect to long-term survival and recurrences have not been reported adequately and hence may not be concluded as being comparable.
Topics: Eye Enucleation; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 26307231
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4826-3 -
International Journal of Surgery... Dec 2016Duct-to-mucosa and invagination are two commonly used techniques of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Previously, we conducted a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Duct-to-mucosa and invagination are two commonly used techniques of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Previously, we conducted a systematic review comparing the safety and efficacy of the two PJ techniques. Here, we added new evidence and updated our previous conclusion.
METHODS
We systematically searched multiple databases and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing duct-to-mucosa and invagination techniques of PJ. The quality of evidence was assessed using Jadad score, and reporting bias was evaluated using funnel plots. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The primary outcome was pancreatic fistula, and the secondary outcomes included mortality, reoperation, morbidity and postoperative hospital stay. Trial sequential analysis was performed to calculate the required information size.
RESULTS
Seven RCTs with 850 participants were included. No significant difference was detected in the rates of pancreatic fistula (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.53), mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.18), reoperation (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.20) and morbidity (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16) between the two groups. However, patients who underwent duct-to-mucosa PJ had a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay (mean difference -2.80, 95% CI -5.08 to -0.52). Trial sequential analysis showed that another 279 participants were needed for conclusive results.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the current evidence, duct-to-mucosa PJ did not decrease the rates of pancreatic fistula and other adverse events as compared to invagination PJ; however, it did reduce postoperative hospital stay. Further RCTs are needed.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Humans; Intestinal Mucosa; Length of Stay; Mortality; Pancreatic Ducts; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Safety
PubMed: 27826046
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.11.008