-
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 -
Gland Surgery May 2021Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal tumours in Western society. Pancreatic surgery can be considered a challenge for open and laparoscopic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal tumours in Western society. Pancreatic surgery can be considered a challenge for open and laparoscopic surgeons, even if the accuracy of gland dissection, due to the close relationship between pancreas, the portal vein, and mesenteric vessels, besides the reconstructive phase (in pancreaticoduodenectomy), lead to significant difficulties for laparoscopic technique. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery changed utterly with the development of robotic surgery. However, this review aims to make more clarity on the influence of robotic surgery on long-term morbidity.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify and analyze studies published from November 2011 to September 2020 concerning robotic pancreatic surgery. The following terms were used to perform the search: "long term morbidity robotic pancreatic surgery".
RESULTS
Eighteen articles included in the study were published between November 2011 and September 2020. The review included 2041 patients who underwent robotic pancreatic surgery, mainly for a malignant tumour. The two most common robotic surgical procedures adopted were the robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). In two studies, patients were divided into groups; on the one hand, those who underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), on the other hand, those who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The remaining items included surgical approach such as robotic middle pancreatectomy (RMP), robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic dissection (RALPD), robotic enucleation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.
CONCLUSIONS
Comparison between robotic surgery and open surgery lead to evidence of different advantages of the robotic approach. A multidisciplinary team and a surgical centre at high volume are essential for better postoperative morbidity and mortality.
PubMed: 34164320
DOI: 10.21037/gs-21-64 -
World Journal of Surgery Oct 2021This systematic review explored the efficacy of different pain relief modalities used in the management of postoperative pain following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review explored the efficacy of different pain relief modalities used in the management of postoperative pain following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP) and impact on perioperative outcomes.
METHODS
MEDLINE (OVID), Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science and CENTRAL databases were searched using PRISMA framework. Primary outcomes included pain on postoperative day 2 and 4 and respiratory morbidity. Secondary outcomes included operation time, bile leak, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatic fistula, length of stay, and opioid use.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials and seven retrospective cohort studies (1313 patients) were included in the systematic review. Studies compared epidural analgesia (EDA) (n = 845), patient controlled analgesia (PCA) (n = 425) and transabdominal wound catheters (TAWC) (n = 43). EDA versus PCA following PD was compared in eight studies (1004 patients) in the quantitative meta-analysis. Pain scores on day 2 (p = 0.19) and 4 (p = 0.18) and respiratory morbidity (p = 0.42) were comparable between EDA and PCA. Operative times, bile leak, delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic fistula, opioid use, and length of stay also were comparable between EDA and PCA. Pain scores and perioperative outcomes were comparable between EDA and PCA following DP and EDA and TAWC following PD.
CONCLUSIONS
EDA, PCA and TAWC are the most frequently used analgesic modalities in pancreatic surgery. Pain relief and other perioperative outcomes are comparable between them. Further larger randomized controlled trials are warranted to explore the relative merits of each analgesic modality on postoperative outcomes with emphasis on postoperative complications.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Pancreatectomy; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34185150
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-021-06217-x -
Updates in Surgery Jun 2021The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has been a debate on its related outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated evidence comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes within Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy (OpenPD), Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LapPD), and Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RobPD). MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were referred for systematic search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was executed. Forty-one articles (56,440 patients) were included; 48,382 (85.7%) underwent OpenPD, 5570 (9.8%) LapPD, and 2488 (4.5%) RobPD. Compared to OpenPD, LapPD and RobPD had similar postoperative mortality [Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.26; 95%CrI 0.91-1.61 and RR = 0.78; 95%CrI 0.54-1.12)], clinically relevant (grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 1.12; 95%CrI 0.82-1.43 and RR = 0.87; 95%CrI 0.64-1.14, respectively), and severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) postoperative complications (RR = 1.03; 95%CrI 0.80-1.46 and RR = 0.93; 95%CrI 0.65-1.14, respectively). Compared to OpenPD, both LapPD and RobPD had significantly reduced hospital length-of-stay, estimated blood loss, infectious, pulmonary, overall complications, postoperative bleeding, and hospital readmission. No differences were found in the number of retrieved lymph nodes and R0. OpenPD, LapPD, and RobPD seem to be comparable across clinically relevant POPF, severe complications, postoperative mortality, retrieved lymphnodes, and R0. LapPD and RobPD appears to be safer in terms of infectious, pulmonary, and overall complications with reduced hospital readmission We advocate surgeons to choose their preferred surgical approach according to their expertise, however, the adoption of minimally invasive techniques may possibly improve patients' outcomes.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Humans; Laparoscopy; Network Meta-Analysis; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 33315230
DOI: 10.1007/s13304-020-00916-1 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2023Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC).
METHODS
A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group.
CONCLUSIONS
This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Duodenal Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37581763
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03047-4 -
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 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Sep 2023Prevention and management of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatic resections is still an unresolved issue. Continuous irrigation of the...
PURPOSE
Prevention and management of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatic resections is still an unresolved issue. Continuous irrigation of the peripancreatic area is frequently used to treat necrotizing pancreatitis, but its use after elective pancreatic surgery is not well-known. With this systematic review, we sought to evaluate the current knowledge and expertise regarding the use of continuous irrigation in the surgical area to prevent or treat POPF after elective pancreatic resections.
METHODS
A systematic search of the literature was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, screening the databases of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid MEDLINE. Because of the heterogeneity of the included articles, a statistical inference could not be performed and the literature was reviewed only descriptively. The study was pre-registered online (OSF Registry).
RESULTS
Nine studies were included. Three studies provided data regarding the prophylactic use of continuous irrigation after distal and limited pancreatectomies. Here, patients after irrigation showed a lower rate of clinically relevant POPF, related complications, lengths of stay, and mortality. Six other papers reported the use of local lavage to treat clinically relevant POPF and subsequent fluid collections, with successful outcomes.
CONCLUSION
In the current literature, only a few publications are focused on the use of continuous irrigation after pancreatic resection to prevent or manage POPF. The included studies showed promising results, and this technique may be useful in patients at high risk of POPF. Further investigations and randomized trials are needed.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Elective Surgical Procedures; Therapeutic Irrigation; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37659027
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03070-5 -
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 -
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