-
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jan 2023: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most challenging complications after pancreatic resections, associated with prolonged hospital stay and high... (Review)
Review
: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most challenging complications after pancreatic resections, associated with prolonged hospital stay and high mortality. Early identification of pancreatic fistula is necessary for the treatment to be effective. Several prognostic factors have been identified, although it is unclear which one is the most crucial. Some studies show that post-pancreatectomy hypophosphatemia may be associated with the development of POPF. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether postoperative hypophosphatemia can be used as a prognostic factor for postoperative pancreatic fistula. : The systematic literature review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations (PRISMA) and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to the 31st of January 2022 for studies analyzing postoperative hypophosphatemia as a prognostic factor for POPF. Data including study characteristics, patient characteristics, operation type, definitions of postoperative hypophosphatemia and postoperative pancreatic fistula were extracted. : Initially, 149 articles were retrieved. After screening and final assessment, 3 retrospective studies with 2893 patients were included in this review. An association between postoperative hypophosphatemia and POPF was found in all included studies. Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were more likely to develop severe hypophosphatemia compared to patients undergoing proximal pancreatectomy. Serum phosphate levels on postoperative day 4 (POD 4) and postoperative day 5 (POD 5) remained significantly lower in patients who developed leak-related complications showing a slower recovery of hypophosphatemia from postoperative day 3 (POD 3) through postoperative day 7 (POD 7). Moreover, body mass index (BMI) higher than 30 kg/m, soft pancreatic tissue, abnormal white blood cell count on postoperative day 3 (POD 3), and shorter surgery time were associated with leak-related complications (LRC) and lower phosphate levels. : Early postoperative hypophosphatemia might be used as a prognostic biomarker for early identification of postoperative pancreatic fistula. However, more studies are needed to better identify significant cut-off levels of postoperative hypophosphatemia and development of hypophosphatemia in the postoperative period.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Fistula; Prognosis; Retrospective Studies; Hypophosphatemia; Postoperative Complications; Phosphates; Postoperative Period; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36837475
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59020274 -
Digestive Surgery 2017The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of a new technology, binding pancreaticojejunostomy (BPJ), with conventional pancreaticojejunostomy (CPJ)... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of a new technology, binding pancreaticojejunostomy (BPJ), with conventional pancreaticojejunostomy (CPJ) after pancreaticoduodenectomy in preventing postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were retrieved from literature searches. Pooled OR with 95% CI for dichotomous variables and weighted mean difference with 95% CI for continuous variables were calculated. Fixed-effect and random-effect models as well as subgroup analysis were used for sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS
No statistically significant differences were found in the incidence of POPF, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, reoperation, morbidity, mortality, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, and hospital stay between 2 groups. However, the total costs of hospitalization and ordinary stay were higher in BPJ group (€10,513 ± €6,536 vs. €8,238 ± €4,687, p = 0.002; €7,946 ± €5,023 vs. €5,700 ± €2,902, p = 0.015, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
Our study showed BPJ was as safe as CPJ. However, no significant superiority was found in BPJ group regarding the incidence of POPF. The total costs of hospital stay were higher for patients undergoing BPJ. Surgeons can prefer to perform the digestive tract reconstruction of their choice.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Gastric Emptying; Hospitalization; Humans; Operative Time; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Reoperation
PubMed: 28095392
DOI: 10.1159/000453552 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Nov 2015Pancreatic fistula is a potentially life-threatening complication after a pancreatic resection. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the role of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic fistula is a potentially life-threatening complication after a pancreatic resection. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the role of matrix-bound sealants after a pancreatic resection in terms of preventing or ameliorating the course of a post-operative pancreatic fistula.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in the literature from May 2005 to April 2015. Included were clinical studies using matrix-bound sealants after a pancreatic resection, reporting a post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) according to the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula classification, in which grade B and C fistulae were considered clinically relevant.
RESULTS
Two were studies on patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (sealants n = 67, controls n = 27) and four studies on a distal pancreatectomy (sealants n = 258, controls n = 178). After a pancreatoduodenectomy, 13% of patients treated with sealants versus 11% of patients without sealants developed a POPF (P = 0.76), of which 4% versus 4% were clinically relevant (P = 0.87). After a distal pancreatectomy, 42% of patients treated with sealants versus 52% of patients without sealants developed a POPF (P = 0.03). Of these, 9% versus 12% were clinically relevant (P = 0.19).
CONCLUSIONS
The present data do not support the routine use of matrix-bound sealants after a pancreatic resection, as there was no effect on clinically relevant POPF. Larger, well-designed studies are needed to determine the efficacy of sealants in preventing POPF after a pancreatoduodenectomy.
Topics: Humans; Intraoperative Period; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Tissue Adhesives
PubMed: 26292846
DOI: 10.1111/hpb.12472 -
ANZ Journal of Surgery Dec 2014Wrapping in pancreatic surgery involves the use of the omentum or falciform ligament (FL) to wrap the local retroperitoneal vessels, the pancreatojejunal anastomosis or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Wrapping in pancreatic surgery involves the use of the omentum or falciform ligament (FL) to wrap the local retroperitoneal vessels, the pancreatojejunal anastomosis or the pancreatic section of distal pancreatectomy. However, there is no clear evidence that wrapping in fact provides benefits. We have performed a systematic review of the literature about this topic.
METHODS
We conducted a literature search in the PubMed/MEDLINE database (1966-2012) for any language using various combinations of the following terms: wrapping, omental, omentum, pancreas, pancreatoduodenectomy and falciform ligament.
RESULTS
We selected 12 articles. Among five series that included a control group, only one obtained a statistically significant reduction in pancreatic fistula (PF) in the wrapping group and other series showed a lower percentage of post-operative haemorrhage in the wrapping group. In the seven series without control groups, a slight decrease in the rate of post-operative bleeding and PF was observed.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the literature available at present, we cannot recommend the use of wrapping with omentum and/or FL in pancreatic surgery. Prospective randomized studies applying a systematic wrapping technique are needed in order to establish whether its use should be generalized.
Topics: Humans; Ligaments; Omentum; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25720806
DOI: 10.1111/ans.12491 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2017The purpose of this systematic review was to compare minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) by using meta-analytical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to compare minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) by using meta-analytical techniques.
METHODOLOGY
Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. Data from included studies were extracted for the following outcomes: operative time, overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, blood loss, postoperative hemorrhage, yield of harvested lymph nodes, R1 rate, length of hospital stay, and readmissions. Random and fix effect meta-analyses were undertaken.
RESULTS
Initial reference search yielded 747 articles. Thorough evaluation resulted in 12 papers, which were analyzed. The total number of patients was 2186 (705 in MIPD group and 1481 in OPD). Although there were no differences in overall morbidity between groups, we noticed reduced blood loss, delayed gastric emptying, and length of hospital stay in favor of MIPD. In contrary, meta-analysis of operative time revealed significant differences in favor of open procedures. Remaining parameters did not differ among groups.
CONCLUSION
Our review suggests that although MIPD takes longer, it may be associated with reduced blood loss, shortened LOS, and comparable rate of perioperative complications. Due to heterogeneity of included studies and differences in baseline characteristics between analyzed groups, the analysis of short-term oncological outcomes does not allow drawing unequivocal conclusions.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 28488004
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-017-1583-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is the third update of a previously published Cochrane Review to address the uncertain benifits of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.
SEARCH METHODS
In this updated review, we re-searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) on 08 February 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included RCTs that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for important outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified a total of nine RCTs with 1892 participants. Drain use versus no drain use We included four RCTs with 1110 participants, randomised to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. Low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may reduce 90-day mortality (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants). Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may result in little to no difference in 30-day mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants), wound infection rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants), length of hospital stay (MD -0.14 days, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.51; three studies, 876 participants), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants), and quality of life (105 points versus 104 points; measured with the pancreas-specific quality of life questionnaire (scale 0 to 144, higher values indicating a better quality of life); one study, 399 participants). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that drain use probably resulted in little to no difference in morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of drain use on intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; three studies, 660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Active versus passive drain We included two RCTs involving 383 participants, randomised to the active drain group (N = 194) and the passive drain group (N = 189) after pancreatic surgery. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on 30-day mortality (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.06; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.66; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.90; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.77; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.04; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.83; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no drain-related complication in either group. Early versus late drain removal We included three RCTs involving 399 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, randomised to the early drain removal group (N = 200) and the late drain removal group (N = 199) after pancreatic surgery. Compared to late drain removal, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of early drain removal on 30-day mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.45; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.85; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), hospital costs (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.14; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.10; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.79; one study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -2.20 days, 95% CI -3.52 to -0.87; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain. None of the studies reported on drain-related complications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with no drain use, it is unclear whether routine drain use has any effect on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that routine drain use may reduce mortality at 90 days. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications. Compared with late drain removal, early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate, morbidity, and length of hospital stay for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but the evidence is very uncertain.
Topics: Abdomen; Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula
PubMed: 34921395
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub5 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2022Background and Aims: Recent single-center retrospective studies have focused on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients, and compared the outcomes... (Review)
Review
Background and Aims: Recent single-center retrospective studies have focused on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients, and compared the outcomes between the laparoscopic and open approaches. Our study aimed to determine the outcomes of LPD in the elderly patients, by performing a systematic review and a meta-analysis of relevant studies. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted utilizing the Embase, Medline, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases to identify all studies that compared laparoscopic vs. open approach for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Results: Five retrospective studies were included in the final analysis. Overall, 90-day mortality rates were significantly decreased after LPD in elderly patients compared with open approaches (RR = 0.56; 95%CI: 0.32−0.96; p = 0.037, I2 = 0%). The laparoscopic approach had similar mortality rate at 30-day, readmission rate in hospital, Clavien−Dindo complications, pancreatic fistula grade B/C, complete resection rate, reoperation for complications and blood loss as the open approach. Additionally, comparing with younger patients (<70 years old), no significant differences were seen in elderly cohort patients regarding mortality rate at 90 days, readmission rate to hospital, and complication rate. Conclusions: Based on our meta-analysis, we identify that LPD in elderly is a safe procedure, with significantly lower 90-day mortality rates when compared with the open approach. Our results should be considered with caution, considering the retrospective analyses of the included studies; larger prospective studies are required.
PubMed: 36362961
DOI: 10.3390/life12111810 -
Surgery Jul 2022The complexity of pancreaticoduodenectomy and fear of morbidity, particularly postoperative pancreatic fistula, can be a barrier to surgical trainees gaining operative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The complexity of pancreaticoduodenectomy and fear of morbidity, particularly postoperative pancreatic fistula, can be a barrier to surgical trainees gaining operative experience. This meta-analysis sought to compare the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or established surgeons.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula rates after pancreatoenteric anastomosis between trainee-led versus consultant/attending surgeons pooled using meta-analysis. Variation in rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was further explored using risk-adjusted outcomes using published risk scores and cumulative sum control chart analysis in a retrospective cohort.
RESULTS
Across 14 cohorts included in the meta-analysis, trainees tended toward a lower but nonsignificant rate of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.77, P = .45) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.69, P = .37). However, there was evidence of case selection, with trainees being less likely to operate on patients with a pancreatic duct width <3 mm (odds ratio: 0.45, P = .05). Similarly, analysis of a retrospective cohort (N = 756 cases) found patients operated by trainees to have significantly lower predicted all postoperative pancreatic fistula (median: 20 vs 26%, P < .001) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (7 vs 9%, P = .020) rates than consultant/attending surgeons, based on preoperative risk scores. After adjusting for this on multivariable analysis, the risks of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 1.18, P = .604) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.85, P = .693) remained similar after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or consultant/attending surgeons.
CONCLUSION
Pancreatoenteric anastomosis, when performed by trainees, is associated with acceptable outcomes. There is evidence of case selection among patients undergoing surgery by trainees; hence, risk adjustment provides a critical tool for the objective evaluation of performance.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Humans; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Risk Adjustment; Surgeons
PubMed: 35221107
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.12.033 -
Surgical Endoscopy Dec 2016The technique of minimally invasive pancreatic surgeries has evolved rapidly, including minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). However, controversy on safety... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUNDS AND OBJECTIVE
The technique of minimally invasive pancreatic surgeries has evolved rapidly, including minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). However, controversy on safety and feasibility remains when comparing the MIPD with the open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD); therefore, we aimed to compare MIPD and OPD with a systemic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies (up to February 2016) comparing MIPD with OPD. Intra-operative outcomes, oncologic data, postoperative complications and postoperative recovery were evaluated.
RESULTS
Twenty-two retrospective studies including 6120 patients (1018 MIPDs and 5102 OPDs) were included. MIPD was associated with a reduction in estimated blood loss (WMD -312.00 ml, 95 % CI -436.30 to -187.70 ml, p < 0.001), transfusion rate (OR 0.41, 95 % CI 0.30-0.55, p < 0.001), wound infection (OR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.20-0.66, p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (WMD -3.57 days, 95 % CI -5.17 to -1.98 days, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, MIPD group has a higher R0 resection rate (OR 1.47, 95 % CI 1.18-1.82, p < 0.001) and more lymph nodes harvest (WMD 1.74, 95 % CI 1.03-2.45, p < 0.001). However, it had longer operation time (WMD 83.91 min, 95 % CI 36.60-131.21 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two procedures in morbidities (p = 0.86), postoperative pancreatic fistula (p = 0.17), delayed gastric empting (p = 0.65), vascular resection (p = 0.68), reoperation (p = 0.33) and mortality (p = 0.90).
CONCLUSIONS
MIPD can be a reasonable alternative to OPD with potential advantages. However, further large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-ups are suggested to confirm and update the findings of our analysis.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27005287
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-4864-3 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Jun 2020Pasireotide was recently suggested for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatic surgery. However, its efficacy remains to be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pasireotide was recently suggested for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatic surgery. However, its efficacy remains to be controversially dicussed. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of pasireotide for preventing POPF after pancreatic surgery.
METHOD
A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library to identify clinical studies investigating the efficacy of pasireotide after pancreatic surgery. The identified studies were critically appraised, and meta-analyses were then performed. The study was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and was registered at the PROSPERO study database (CRD42018112334).
RESULTS
Four studies with a total of 919 patients were included: 418 with pasireotide treatment and 501 controls. Meta-analysis showed that pasireotide could reduce neither clinically relevant POPF rate (OR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.24; P = 0.29) nor overall POPF rate (OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.60-1.48; P = 0.80) after pancreatic resections. There were no significant differences in delayed gastric emptying, mortality, and postoperative hospital stay after pancreatic surgery. However, pasireotide reduces readmission after pancreatic surgery (OR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.85; P = 0.004). Subgroup analyses revealed that prophylactic use of pasireotide did not reduce the incidence of clinically relevant POPF after pancreaticoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy compared with the control.
CONCLUSION
Based on the available evidence, use of pasireotide may not reduce clinically relevant POPF as well as it may not improve postoperative course substantially after pancreatic surgery. Further investigator-initiated high-quality trials are needed.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Somatostatin
PubMed: 32207077
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-019-04479-4