-
BJS Open Sep 2023Groove pancreatitis is a focal form of chronic pancreatitis affecting the area of the paraduodenal groove. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the clinical...
BACKGROUND
Groove pancreatitis is a focal form of chronic pancreatitis affecting the area of the paraduodenal groove. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the clinical presentation, diagnosis and treatment of patients with groove pancreatitis.
METHODS
Medical literature databases (Embase, Medline via PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were systematically searched for data recorded between 1 January 1990 and 31 August 2022 regarding patient characteristics, diagnosis, surgical treatment and outcomes. The following inclusion criteria were applied: RCTs, observational studies (cohort and case-control studies) and case studies with >3 cases including patients with groove pancreatitis undergoing medical, endoscopic or surgical treatment with available clinical and diagnostic data. Fisher's exact test for binary data and Mann-Whitney U test or Student t-test for continuous data were adopted for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
Of 649 studies, 44 were included, involving reports on 1404 patients with a mean age of 49 years. In 41 of the 44 studies in which patient gender was described, 86 per cent (N = 1023) of patients were male. Information on the risk factors of alcohol and nicotine was available in 37 and 23 studies, respectively. Seventy-nine per cent (N = 886) of patients had a history of excessive alcohol consumption and 83 per cent (N = 595) were smokers. Information on clinical symptoms was available in 37 of the 44 included studies and 78.5 per cent (N = 870) presented with abdominal pain. Some 27 studies comprising 920 groove pancreatitis patients were treatment oriented. Seventy-four per cent (N = 682) of patients were treated conservatively, 26.4 per cent (N = 134) underwent endoscopic treatment and 54.7 per cent (N = 503) required surgery. There was complete relief of symptoms in 35.6 per cent (N = 243) after conservative treatment, 55.2 per cent (N = 74) after endoscopic treatment and 69.6 per cent (N = 350) after surgical treatment. The median follow-up time was 42 months (range, 1-161 months).
CONCLUSION
Groove pancreatitis shows on imaging a typical triad: cystic lesions in the pancreatic duct or duodenal wall, calcifications, and thickenings of the duodenal wall. Surgery appears to be the most effective treatment modality.
Topics: Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Female; Rare Diseases; Abdominal Pain; Case-Control Studies; Conservative Treatment; Pancreatitis
PubMed: 37749756
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad094 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Sep 2020Pancreatic duct stones can lead to significant abdominal pain for patients. Per oral pancreatoscopy (POP)-guided intracorporal lithotripsy is being increasingly used for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic duct stones can lead to significant abdominal pain for patients. Per oral pancreatoscopy (POP)-guided intracorporal lithotripsy is being increasingly used for the management of main pancreatic duct calculi (PDC) in chronic pancreatitis. POP uses two techniques: Electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) and laser lithotripsy (LL). Data on the safety and efficacy are limited for this procedure. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with a primary aim to calculate the pooled technical and clinical success rates of POP. The secondary aim was to assess pooled rates of technical success, clinical success for the two individual techniques, and adverse event rates.
AIM
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of POP, EHL and LL for management of PDC in chronic pancreatitis.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Google Scholar and Web of Science databases (from 1999 to October 2019) to identify studies with patient age greater than 17 and any gender that reported on outcomes of POP, EHL and LL. The primary outcome assessed involved the pooled technical success and clinical success rate of POP. The secondary outcome included the pooled technical success and clinical success rate for EHL and LL. We also assessed the pooled rate of adverse events for POP, EHL and LL including a subgroup analysis for the rate of adverse event subtypes for POP: Hemorrhage, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP), perforation, abdominal pain, fever and infections. Technical success was defined as the rate of clearing pancreatic duct stones and clinical success as the improvement in pain. Random-effects model was used for analysis. Heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was calculated using the Cochran statistical test and statistics. Publication bias was ascertained, qualitatively by visual inspection of funnel plot and quantitatively by the Egger test.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies including 383 patients met the inclusion criteria. The technical success rate of POP was 76.4% (95%CI: 65.9-84.5; = 64%) and clinical success rate was 76.8% (95%CI: 65.2-85.4; = 66%). The technical success rate of EHL was 70.3% (95%CI: 57.8-80.3; = 36%) and clinical success rate of EHL was 66.5% (95%CI: 55.2-76.2; = 19%). The technical success rate of LL was 89.3% (95%CI: 70.5-96.7; = 70%) and clinical success rate of LL was 88.2% (95%CI: 66.4-96.6; = 77%). The incidence of pooled adverse events for POP was 14.9% (95%CI: 9.2-23.2; = 49%), for EHL was 11.2% (95%CI: 5.9-20.3; = 15%) and for LL was 13.1% (95%CI: 6.3-25.4; = 31%). Subgroup analysis of adverse events showed rates of PEP at 7% (95%CI: 3.5-13.6; = 38%), fever at 3.7% (95%CI: 2-6.9; = 0), abdominal pain at 4.7% (95%CI: 2.7-7.8; = 0), perforation at 4.3% (95%CI: 2.1-8.4; = 0), hemorrhage at 3.4% (95%CI: 1.7-6.6; = 0) and no mortality. There was evidence of publication bias based on funnel plot analysis and Egger's test.
CONCLUSION
Our study highlights the high technical and clinical success rates for POP, EHL and LL. POP-guided lithotripsy could be a viable option for management of chronic pancreatitis with PDC.
Topics: Calculi; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Humans; Lithotripsy; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Ducts; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32982119
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i34.5207 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jul 2018Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare LPD with OPD for these malignancies regarding short-term surgical and long-term survival outcomes.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted before March 2018 to identify comparative studies in regard to outcomes of both LPD and OPD for the treatment of pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancies. Morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), mortality, operative time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization, retrieved lymph nodes, and survival outcomes were compared.
RESULTS
Among eleven identified studies, 1196 underwent LPD, and 8247 were operated through OPD. The pooled data showed that LPD was associated with less morbidity (OR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.41~ 0.78, P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD = - 372.96 ml, 95% CI, - 507.83~ - 238.09 ml, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stays (WMD = - 197.49 ml, 95% CI, - 304.62~ - 90.37 ml, P < 0.01), and comparable POPF (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.59~ 1.24, P = 0.40), and overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.93~ 1.14, P = 0.54) compared to OPD. Operative time was longer in LPD (WMD = 87.68 min; 95%CI: 27.05~ 148.32, P < 0.01), whereas R0 rate tended to be higher in LPD (OR = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.00~ 1.37, P = 0.05) and there tended to be more retrieved lymph nodes in LPD (WMD = 1.15, 95%CI: -0.16~ 2.47, P = 0.08), but these differences failed to reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS
LPD can be performed as safe and effective as OPD for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy with respect to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LPD is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity and may serve as a promising alternative to OPD in selected individuals in the future.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Lymphatic Metastasis; Operative Time; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 29969999
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-018-0830-y -
The British Journal of Surgery Jun 2017Periampullary cancers are uncommon malignancies, often amenable to surgery. Several studies have suggested a role for adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Periampullary cancers are uncommon malignancies, often amenable to surgery. Several studies have suggested a role for adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in improving survival of patients with periampullary cancers, with variable results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the survival benefit of adjuvant therapy for periampullary cancers.
METHODS
A systematic review was undertaken of literature published between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2015 to elicit and analyse the pooled overall survival associated with the use of either adjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy versus observation in the treatment of surgically resected periampullary cancer. Included articles were also screened for information regarding stage, prognostic factors and toxicity-related events.
RESULTS
A total of 704 titles were screened, of which 93 full-text articles were retrieved. Fourteen full-text articles were included in the study, six of which were RCTs. A total of 1671 patients (904 in the control group and 767 who received adjuvant therapy) were included. The median 5-year overall survival rate was 37·5 per cent in the control group, compared with 40·0 per cent in the adjuvant group (hazard ratio 1·08, 95 per cent c.i. 0·91 to 1·28; P = 0·067). In 32·2 per cent of patients who had adjuvant therapy, one or more WHO grade 3 or 4 toxicity-related events were noted. Advanced T category was associated worse survival (regression coefficient -0·14, P = 0·040), whereas nodal status and grade of differentiation were not.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review found no associated survival benefit for adjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of periampullary cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Ampulla of Vater; Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Duodenal Neoplasms; Humans; Survival Rate
PubMed: 28518410
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10563 -
Canadian Journal of Surgery. Journal... 2022Patients should be informed beforehand of the risk factors for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (ExoPI) after pancreatic surgery; however, there are no clear identified... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients should be informed beforehand of the risk factors for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (ExoPI) after pancreatic surgery; however, there are no clear identified risk factors for this condition. This study aimed to identify the preoperative, perioperative and postoperative risk factors for ExoPI after pancreatic surgery.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, SAGE, CINAHL Plus and Taylor & Francis from inception to Mar. 7, 2021, for full-text articles that included patients who had undergone pancreatic surgery. The primary outcome was the number of ExoPI events and any risk factors evaluated. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess study quality.
RESULTS
Twenty studies involving 4131 patients (2312 [52.3%] male, mean age 60.12 [standard deviation 14.07] yr) were included. Of the 4131 patients, 1651 (40.0%) had postoperative ExoPI. Among the 11 factors evaluated, the significant risk factors were preoperative main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter greater than 3 mm (odds ratio [OR] 4.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-19.05), pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) as the surgical treatment procedure (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.92-5.68), pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) as the anastomotic procedure (OR 3.13, 95% CI 1.83-5.35), hard pancreatic texture (OR 2.93, 95% CI 1.99-4.32) and adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.54-4.04). Gender, history of diabetes mellitus or endocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EndoPI), underlying diseases, de novo diabetes or EndoPI, pylorus-preserving PD and postoperative pancreatic fistula were not risk factors for ExoPI after pancreatic surgery.
CONCLUSION
Preoperative MPD diameter greater than 3 mm, PD, PG reconstruction, hard pancreatic texture and adjuvant chemotherapy were risk factors for the development of ExoPI after pancreatic surgery. The findings should provide useful information for patients to reduce postoperative dissatisfaction and improve quality of life.
Topics: Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Female; Quality of Life; Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatectomy; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Pancreatic Diseases
PubMed: 36384688
DOI: 10.1503/cjs.010621 -
Endoscopy International Open Oct 2020Per-oral pancreatoscopy (POP) with intraductal lithotripsy via electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) or laser lithotripsy (LL) facilitates optically-guided stone... (Review)
Review
Per-oral pancreatoscopy (POP) with intraductal lithotripsy via electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) or laser lithotripsy (LL) facilitates optically-guided stone fragmentation of difficult pancreatic stones refractory to conventional endoscopic therapy. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of POP with intraductal lithotripsy for difficult pancreatic duct stones. Individualized search strategies were developed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. This was a cumulative meta-analysis performed by calculating pooled proportions with rates estimated using random effects models. Measured outcomes included pooled technical success, complete or partial stone fragmentation success, complete duct clearance after initial lithotripsy session, and adverse events (AEs). Ten studies (n = 302 patients; 67.72 % male; mean age 55.10 ± 3.22 years) were included with mean stone size of 10.66 ± 2.19 mm. The most common stone location was in the pancreatic head (66.17 %). Pooled technical success was 91.18 % with an overall fragmentation success of 85.77 %. Single lithotripsy session stone fragmentation and pancreatic duct clearance occurred in 62.05 % of cases. Overall, adverse events were reported in 14.09 % of patients with post-procedure pancreatitis developing in 8.73 %. Of these adverse events, 4.84 % were classified as serious. Comparing POP-EHL vs POP-LL, there was no significant difference in technical success, fragmentation success, single session duct clearance, or AEs ( > 0.0500). Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis, POP with intraductal lithotripsy appears to be an effective and relatively safe procedure for patients with difficult to remove pancreatic duct stones.
PubMed: 33043115
DOI: 10.1055/a-1236-3187 -
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 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Aug 2020Pancreatic duct occlusion (PDO) without anastomosis is a technique proposed to mitigate the clinical consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic duct occlusion (PDO) without anastomosis is a technique proposed to mitigate the clinical consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The aim of this study was to appraise the morbidity following PDO through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web Of Science identified studies reporting outcomes of PDO following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Pooled prevalence rates of postoperative complications and mortality were computed using random-effect modeling. Meta-regression analyses were performed to examine the impact of moderators on the overall estimates.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies involving 1000 patients were included. Pooled postoperative mortality was 2.7%. A POPF was reported in 29.7% of the patients. Clinically relevant POPFs occurred in 13.5% of the patients, while intra-abdominal abscess and haemorrhages occurred in 6.7% and 5.5% of the patients, respectively. Re-operation was necessary in 7.6% of the patients. Postoperatively new onset diabetes occurred in 15.8% of patients, more frequently after the use of chemical substances for PDO (p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS
PDO is associated with significant morbidity including new onset of post-operative diabetes. The risk of new onset post-operative diabetes is associated with the use of chemical substance for PDO. Further evidence is needed to evaluate the potential benefits of PDO in patients at high risk of POPF.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Humans; Morbidity; Pancreatic Ducts; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 32471694
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.04.014 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2023The best approach for treating benign or low-grade malignant lesions localized in the pancreatic neck or body remains debatable. Conventional pancreatoduodenectomy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The best approach for treating benign or low-grade malignant lesions localized in the pancreatic neck or body remains debatable. Conventional pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy (DP) are associated with a risk of impairment of pancreatic function at long-term follow-up. With advances in technology and surgical skills, the use of central pancreatectomy (CP) has gradually increased.
OBJECTIVES
The objective was to compare the safety, feasibility, and short-term and long-term clinical benefits of CP and DP in matched cases.
METHODS
The PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched to identify studies published from database inception to February 2022 that compared CP and DP. This meta-analysis was performed using R software.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies matched the selection criteria, including 774 CP and 1713 DP cases. CP was significantly associated with longer operative time ( P <0.0001), less blood loss ( P <0.01), overall and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula ( P <0.0001), postoperative hemorrhage ( P <0.0001), reoperation ( P =0.0196), delayed gastric emptying ( P =0.0096), increased hospital stay ( P =0.0002), intra-abdominal abscess or effusion ( P =0.0161), higher morbidity ( P <0.0001) and severe morbidity ( P <0.0001) but with a significantly lower incidence of overall endocrine and exocrine insufficiency ( P <0.01), and new-onset and worsening diabetes mellitus ( P <0.0001) than DP.
CONCLUSIONS
CP should be considered as an alternative to DP in selected cases such as without pancreatic disease, length of the residual distal pancreas is more than 5 cm, branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula after adequate evaluation.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Retrospective Studies; Pancreas; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37300889
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000326 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2023Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is a common complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD). However, its risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is a common complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD). However, its risk factors are still unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to identify the potential risk factors of DGE among patients undergoing PD or PPPD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrial.gov for studies that examined the clinical risk factors of DGE after PD or PPPD from inception through 31 July 2022. We pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs using random-effects or fixed-effects models. We also performed heterogeneity, sensitivity, and publication bias analyses.
RESULTS
The study included a total of 31 research studies, which involved 9205 patients. The pooled analysis indicated that out of 16 nonsurgical-related risk factors, three risk factors were found to be associated with an increased incidence of DGE. These risk factors were older age (OR 1.37, P =0.005), preoperative biliary drainage (OR 1.34, P =0.006), and soft pancreas texture (OR 1.23, P =0.04). On the other hand, patients with dilated pancreatic duct (OR 0.59, P =0.005) had a decreased risk of DGE. Among 12 operation-related risk factors, more blood loss (OR 1.33, P =0.01), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (OR 2.09, P <0.001), intra-abdominal collection (OR 3.58, P =0.001), and intra-abdominal abscess (OR 3.06, P <0.0001) were more likely to cause DGE. However, our data also revealed 20 factors did not support stimulative factors influencing DGE.
CONCLUSION
Age, preoperative biliary drainage, pancreas texture, pancreatic duct size, blood loss, POPF, intra-abdominal collection, and intra-abdominal abscess are significantly associated with DGE. This meta-analysis may have utility in guiding clinical practice for improvements in screening patients with a high risk of DGE and selecting appropriate treatment measures.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Gastroparesis; Pylorus; Pancreatic Fistula; Risk Factors; Postoperative Complications; Abdominal Abscess; Gastric Emptying
PubMed: 37073540
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000418