-
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Nov 2015A post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). This systematic review aimed to identify all... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). This systematic review aimed to identify all scoring systems to predict POPF after a PD, consider their clinical applicability and assess the study quality.
METHOD
An electronic search was performed of Medline (1946-2014) and EMBASE (1996-2014) databases. Results were screened according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and quality assessed according to the QUIPS (quality in prognostic studies) tool.
RESULTS
Six eligible scoring systems were identified. Five studies used the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition. The proposed scores feature between two and five variables and of the 16 total variables, the majority (12) featured in only one score. Three scores could be fully completed pre-operatively whereas 1 score included intra-operative and two studies post-operative variables. Four scores were internally validated and of these, two scores have been subject to subsequent multicentre review. The median QUIPS score was 38 out of 50 (range 16-50).
CONCLUSION
These scores show potential in calculating the individualized patient risk of POPF. There is, however, much variation in current scoring systems and further validation in large multicentre cohorts is now needed.
Topics: Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 26456948
DOI: 10.1111/hpb.12503 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Oct 2022The effect of early oral feeding (EOF) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) upon perioperative complications and outcomes is unknown, therefore the aim of this systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The effect of early oral feeding (EOF) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) upon perioperative complications and outcomes is unknown, therefore the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of EOF on clinical outcomes after PD, such as postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) and length of stay (LOS).
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance and assimilated evidence from studies reporting outcomes for patients who received EOF after PD compared to enteral tube feeding (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN).
RESULTS
Four studies reported outcomes after EOF compared to EN/PN after PD and included 553 patients. Meta-analyses showed no difference in rates of CR-POPF (OR 0.74; 95%CI 0.44-1.24; p = 0.25) or DGE (Grade B/C) (OR 0.83; 95%CI 0.31-2.21; p = 0.70). LOS was significantly shorter in the EOF group compared to the EN/PN group (Mean Difference -3.40 days; 95% -6.11-0.70 days; p = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
Current available evidence suggests that EOF after PD is not associated with increased risk of DGE, does not exacerbate POPF and appears to reduce length of stay.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Enteral Nutrition; Length of Stay; Parenteral Nutrition; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 35606323
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2022.04.005 -
Surgical Endoscopy Aug 2017Although robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been successfully performed since 2003, its advantages over open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) are still uncertain.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been successfully performed since 2003, its advantages over open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) are still uncertain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of RPD to those of OPD.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed to identify RPD versus OPD comparative studies published between January 2003 and January 2016. Intraoperative outcomes, post-operative outcomes and oncologic safety were evaluated. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models.
RESULTS
Nine non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 680 patients met the inclusion criteria and involved 245 RPDs and 435 OPDs. The overall complication rate was significantly lower in RPD (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47-0.91, P = 0.012), as well as the margin positivity rate (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.77, P = 0.006), the wound infection rate (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06-0.53, P = 0.002) and the length of hospital stay (WMD = -6.00, 95% CI -9.80 to -2.21, P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the following: the number of lymph nodes harvested; the operation time; the reoperation rate; the incidence of delayed gastric emptying, bile leakage, pancreatic fistula and clinically significant pancreatic fistula; and mortality. The mean conversion rate was 7.3% (range 0-14%).
CONCLUSIONS
According to the results of this meta-analysis, RPD is as safe and efficient as OPD and is even favourable in terms of margin-negative resection, overall complication and wound infection rates and length of hospital stay. Given that there have not yet been any high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the evidence is still limited. Additional prospective, multi-centre RCTs are needed to further define the role of the robotic technique in PD.
Topics: Anastomotic Leak; Gastroparesis; Humans; Incidence; Length of Stay; Margins of Excision; Odds Ratio; Operative Time; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Reoperation; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 27928665
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5371-2 -
Expert Review of Gastroenterology &... Jan 2017The safety of laparoscopic resections (LPS) of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs) has been well established in the literature. Areas covered: Studies conducted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The safety of laparoscopic resections (LPS) of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs) has been well established in the literature. Areas covered: Studies conducted between January 2003 and December 2015 that reported on LPS and open surgery (OPS) were reviewed. The primary outcomes were the rate of post-operative complications and the length of hospital stay (LoS) after laparoscopic and open surgical resection. The rate of recurrence was the secondary outcome. Eleven studies were included with a total of 907 pancreatic resections for PNENs, of whom, 298 (32.8%) underwent LPS and 609 (67.2%) underwent open surgery. LPS resulted in a significantly shorter LoS (p < 0.0001) and lower blood loss (p < 0.0001). The meta-analysis did not show any significant difference in the pancreatic fistula rate, recurrence rate or post-operative mortality between the two groups. Expert commentary: LPS is a safe approach even for PNENs and it is associated with a shorter LoS.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Chi-Square Distribution; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neuroendocrine Tumors; Odds Ratio; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27781493
DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2017.1253473 -
International Journal of Surgery... Aug 2023Pancreatectomy is the only curative treatment available for pancreatic cancer and a necessity for patients with challenging pancreatic pathology. To optimize outcomes,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pancreatectomy is the only curative treatment available for pancreatic cancer and a necessity for patients with challenging pancreatic pathology. To optimize outcomes, postsurgical complications such as clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) should be minimized. Central to this is the ability to predict and diagnose CR-POPF, potentially through drain fluid biomarkers. This study aimed to assess the utility of drain fluid biomarkers for predicting CR-POPF by conducting a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Five databases were searched for relevant and original papers published from January 2000 to December 2021, with citation chaining capturing additional studies. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability of the selected studies.
RESULTS
Seventy-eight papers were included in the meta-analysis, encompassing six drain biomarkers and 30 758 patients with a CR-POPF prevalence of 17.42%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for 15 cut-offs were determined. Potential triage tests (negative predictive value >90%) were identified for the ruling out of CR-POPF and included postoperative day 1 (POD1) drain amylase in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) patients (300 U/l) and in mixed surgical cohorts (2500 U/l), POD3 drain amylase in PD patients (1000-1010 U/l) and drain lipase in mixed surgery groups (180 U/l). Notably, drain POD3 lipase had a higher sensitivity than POD3 amylase, while POD3 amylase had a higher specificity than POD1.
CONCLUSIONS
The current findings using the pooled cut-offs will offer options for clinicians seeking to identify patients for quicker recovery. Improving the reporting of future diagnostic test studies will further clarify the diagnostic utility of drain fluid biomarkers, facilitating their inclusion in multivariable risk-stratification models and the improvement of pancreatectomy outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Drainage; Biomarkers; Amylases; Risk Factors
PubMed: 37216227
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000482 -
Surgery Nov 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy with a specific emphasis on the postoperative pancreatic fistula. For benign and low-grade malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and body, central pancreatectomy may be an alternative to distal pancreatectomy. Exocrine and endocrine insufficiency occur less often after central pancreatectomy, but the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula is higher.
METHODS
An electronic search was performed for studies on elective minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, which reported on major morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula in PubMed, Cochrane Register, Embase, and Google Scholar until June 1, 2021. A review protocol was developed a priori and registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021259738. A meta-regression was performed by using a random effects model.
RESULTS
Overall, 41 studies were included involving 1,004 patients, consisting of 158 laparoscopic minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, 80 robot-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, and 766 open central pancreatectomies. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was 14%, major morbidity 14%, and 30-day mortality 1%. The rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (17% vs 24%, P = .194), major morbidity (17% vs 14%, P = .672), and new-onset diabetes (3% vs 6%, P = .353) did not differ significantly between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, respectively. Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy was associated with significantly fewer blood transfusions, less exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and fewer readmissions compared with open central pancreatectomy. A meta-regression was performed with a random effects model between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy and showed no significant difference for postoperative pancreatic fistula (random effects model 0.16 [0.10; 0.24] with P = .789), major morbidity (random effects model 0.20 [0.15; 0.25] with P = .410), and new-onset diabetes mellitus (random effects model 0.04 [0.02; 0.07] with P = .651).
CONCLUSION
In selected patients and in experienced hands, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy is a safe alternative to open central pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant lesions of the neck and body. Ideally, further research should confirm this with the main focus on postoperative pancreatic fistula and endocrine and exocrine insufficiency.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35987787
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.06.024 -
Fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Postoperative pancreatic fistula is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic resections. Fibrin sealants are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pancreatic fistula is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic resections. Fibrin sealants are introduced to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula by some surgeons. However, the use of fibrin sealants during pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the safety, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects of fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched trial registers and the following biomedical databases: the Cochrane Library (2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to 12 April 2018), Embase (1980 to 12 April 2018), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 12 April 2018), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 12 April 2018).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials 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
Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or a Peto odds ratio (OR) for very rare outcomes), and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies involving 1462 participants in the review.Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic stump closure reinforcement after distal pancreatectomyWe included seven studies involving 860 participants: 428 were randomized to the fibrin sealant group and 432 to the control group after distal pancreatectomy. Fibrin sealants may lead to little or no difference in postoperative pancreatic fistula (fibrin sealant 19.3%; control 20.1%; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; 755 participants; four studies; low-quality evidence). Fibrin sealants may also lead to little or no difference in postoperative mortality (0.3% versus 0.5%; Peto OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.03; 804 participants; six studies; low-quality evidence), or overall postoperative morbidity (28.5% versus 23.2%; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.58; 646 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce reoperation rate (2.0% versus 3.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.71; 376 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference in length of hospital stay between the groups (12.1 days versus 11.4 days; MD 0.32 days, 95% CI -1.06 to 1.70; 755 participants; four studies; moderate-quality evidence). The studies did not report serious adverse events, quality of life, or cost effectiveness.Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement after pancreaticoduodenectomyWe included three studies involving 251 participants: 115 were randomized to the fibrin sealant group and 136 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula (1.6% versus 6.2%; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.06; 57 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Fibrin sealants may lead to little or no difference in postoperative mortality (0.1% versus 0.7%; Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 7.76; 251 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence) or length of hospital stay (12.8 days versus 14.8 days; MD -1.58 days, 95% CI -3.96 to 0.81; 181 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce overall postoperative morbidity (33.7% versus 34.7%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.45; 181 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence), or reoperation rate (7.6% versus 9.2%; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.11; 181 participants; two studies, very low-quality evidence). The studies did not report serious adverse events, quality of life, or cost effectiveness.Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic duct occlusion after pancreaticoduodenectomyWe included two studies involving 351 participants: 188 were randomized to the fibrin sealant group and 163 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Fibrin sealants may lead to little or no difference in postoperative mortality (8.4% versus 6.1%; Peto OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.13; 351 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence) or length of hospital stay (17.0 days versus 16.5 days; MD 0.58 days, 95% CI -5.74 to 6.89; 351 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce overall postoperative morbidity (32.0% versus 27.6%; RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.02; 351 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence), or reoperation rate (13.6% versus 16.0%; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41; 351 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in one study: 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 postoperative pancreatic fistula, quality of life, or cost effectiveness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current available evidence, fibrin sealants may have little or no effect on postoperative pancreatic fistula in people undergoing distal pancreatectomy. The effects of fibrin sealants on the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula are uncertain in people undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Topics: Fibrin Tissue Adhesive; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Tissue Adhesives
PubMed: 29934987
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009621.pub3 -
Fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Postoperative pancreatic fistula is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic resections. Fibrin sealants are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pancreatic fistula is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic resections. Fibrin sealants are introduced to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula by some surgeons. However, the use of fibrin sealants during pancreatic surgery is controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the safety, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects of fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to 26 August 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 26 August 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 26 August 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 26 August 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials that compared fibrin sealant group (fibrin glue or fibrin sealant patch) versus control group (no fibrin sealant or placebo) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or a Peto odds ratio for very rare outcomes), and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials involving 1095 participants who were randomized to the fibrin sealant group (N = 550) and the control group (N = 545) after pancreatic surgery. All of the trials were at high risk of bias. There was no evidence of differences in overall postoperative pancreatic fistula (fibrin sealant 29.6%; control 31.0%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21; P = 0.58; nine studies; low-quality evidence), postoperative mortality (3.1% versus 2.1%; Peto OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.82; P = 0.53; eight studies; very low-quality evidence), overall postoperative morbidity (29.6% versus 28.9%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.32; P = 0.77; five studies), reoperation rate (8.7% versus 10.7%; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.21; P = 0.29; five studies), or length of hospital stay (12.9 days versus 13.1 days; MD -0.73 days, 95% CI -2.20 to 0.74; P = 0.331; six studies) between the groups. The proportion of postoperative pancreatic fistula that was clinically significant was not mentioned in most trials. On inclusion of trials that clearly distinguished clinically significant fistulas, there was inadequate evidence to establish the effect of fibrin sealants on clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula (9.4% versus 13.4%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.21; P = 0.21; three studies). Quality of life and cost effectiveness were not reported in any of the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current available evidence, fibrin sealants do not seem to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
Topics: Fibrin Tissue Adhesive; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Tissue Adhesives
PubMed: 26876721
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009621.pub2 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Jan 2023A series of randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of different timings of interventions and methods of intervention. However, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A series of randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of different timings of interventions and methods of intervention. However, the optimal treatment strategy is not yet clear.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library until November 30, 2022. A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Trials comparing different treatment strategies for necrotizing pancreatitis were included. This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022364409) to ensure transparency.
RESULTS
We analyzed a total of 10 studies involving 570 patients and 8 treatment strategies. Although no statistically significant differences were identified comparing odds ratios, trends were confirmed by the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores. The interventions with a low rate of mortality were delayed surgery (DS), delayed surgical step-up approach (DSU) and delayed endoscopic step-up approach (DEU), while the interventions with a low rate of major complications were DSU, DEU and DS. According to the clustered ranking plot, DSU performed the best overall in reducing mortality and major complications, while DD performed the worst. Analysis of the secondary endpoints confirmed the superiority of DEU and DSU in terms of individual components of major complications (organ failure, pancreatic fistula, bleeding, and visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula), exocrine insufficiency, endocrine insufficiency and length of stay. Overall, DSU was superior to other interventions.
CONCLUSION
DSU was the optimal treatment strategy for necrotizing pancreatitis. Drainage alone should be avoided in clinical practice. Any interventions should be postponed for at least 4 weeks if possible. The step-up approach was preferred.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Drainage
PubMed: 36707836
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-023-00479-7 -
Translational Gastroenterology and... 2017The prevalence of pancreatic cystic echinococcosis (PCE) in the world is low ranging between 0.2% and 0.6%. The diagnosis of PCE is easy when it is associated to other... (Review)
Review
The prevalence of pancreatic cystic echinococcosis (PCE) in the world is low ranging between 0.2% and 0.6%. The diagnosis of PCE is easy when it is associated to other location such as liver, it became difficult when PCE was isolated simulating other diagnosis such as pseudocyst, a choledochal cyst, serous or mucinous cystadenoma and cystadenocarcinoma. This systematic review aimed to provide evidence-based answer to the following questions: (I) what are the efficient tools to affirm the diagnosis of isolated PCE and (II) what are the best therapeutic strategy for the PCE? An electronic search was performed by two authors (W Dougaz, I Bouasker). Medline, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Cochrane collaboration were consulted. The keywords used were "cyst", "echinococcosis", "hydatid cyst" and "pancreas". All abstracts were analyzed followed by extraction of the full text by the same two authors (W Dougaz, I Bouasker), all divergences were resolved by discussion with C Dziri. Recommendations were based on Oxford's classification: (I) what are the efficient tools to affirm the diagnosis of PCE? -ultrasound remains the cornerstone of diagnosis. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reproduces the ultrasound defined features of CE better than computed tomography (CT). MRI with heavily T2-weighted series is preferable to CT. Pancreatic duct MRI should be promising to identify a fistula between PCE and pancreatic duct (level of evidence 3-recommendation B); (II) what are the best therapeutic strategy for the PCE? -surgery is the main treatment of PCE. Open approach is validated. The decision depends of the location of PCE: head body and/or tail of the pancreas (level of evidence 5-recommendation D): for the head of the pancreas, the tendency is toward conservative surgery. For body and/or tail of the pancreas, the tendency is toward radical surgery. Medical treatment (albendazole) should be prescribed 1 week before surgery and 2 months during postoperative period (level II evidence and grade C recommendation).
PubMed: 29354762
DOI: 10.21037/tgh.2017.11.13