-
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 -
Cancers Nov 2021The impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) on survival after resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains unclear. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) on survival after resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains unclear.
METHODS
The MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies reporting on survival in patients with and without POPF. A meta-analysis was performed to investigate the impact of POPF on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Sixteen retrospective cohort studies concerning a total of 5019 patients with an overall clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) rate of 12.63% (n = 634 patients) were considered. Five of eleven studies including DFS data reported higher recurrence rates in patients with POPF, and one study showed a higher recurrence rate in the peritoneal cavity. Six of sixteen studies reported worse OS rates in patients with POPF. Sufficient data for a meta-analysis were available in 11 studies for DFS, and in 16 studies for OS. The meta-analysis identified a shorter DFS in patients with CR-POPF (HR 1.59, = 0.0025), and a worse OS in patients with POPF, CR-POPF (HR 1.15, = 0.0043), grade-C POPF (HR 2.21, = 0.0007), or CR-POPF after neoadjuvant therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
CR-POPF after resection for PDAC is significantly associated with worse overall and disease-free survival.
PubMed: 34830957
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13225803 -
The Indian Journal of Surgery Apr 2016Postoperative pancreatic fistula is still a major complication after pancreatic surgery, despite improvements of surgical technique and perioperative management. We... (Review)
Review
Postoperative pancreatic fistula is still a major complication after pancreatic surgery, despite improvements of surgical technique and perioperative management. We sought to systematically review and critically access the conduct and reporting of methods used to develop risk prediction models for predicting postoperative pancreatic fistula. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify articles published before January 1, 2015, which described the development of models to predict the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula. We extracted information of developing a prediction model including study design, sample size and number of events, definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula, risk predictor selection, missing data, model-building strategies, and model performance. Seven studies of developing seven risk prediction models were included. In three studies (42 %), the number of events per variable was less than 10. The number of candidate risk predictors ranged from 9 to 32. Five studies (71 %) reported using univariate screening, which was not recommended in building a multivariate model, to reduce the number of risk predictors. Six risk prediction models (86 %) were developed by categorizing all continuous risk predictors. The treatment and handling of missing data were not mentioned in all studies. We found use of inappropriate methods that could endanger the development of model, including univariate pre-screening of variables, categorization of continuous risk predictors, and model validation. The use of inappropriate methods affects the reliability and the accuracy of the probability estimates of predicting postoperative pancreatic fistula.
PubMed: 27303124
DOI: 10.1007/s12262-015-1439-9 -
Medicine Dec 2017Our objective is to assess the function of peritoneal drainage, which is placed after pancreatic surgery. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Our objective is to assess the function of peritoneal drainage, which is placed after pancreatic surgery.
BACKGROUND
With the medical advancement some study put forward that peritoneal drainage is not the necessary after pancreatic surgery; it cannot improve the complications of postoperation even leading to more infection and so on. However, there is no one study can clear and definite whether omitting the drainage after surgery or not.
METHOD
Searching databases consist of all kinds of searching tools, such as Medline, The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, etc. All the included studies should meet our demand of this meta-analysis. In the all interest outcomes blow we take the full advantage of RevMan5 to assess, the main measure is odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence, the publication bias are assessed by Egger test and Begg test.
RESULT
The rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) in no drainage group is much lower than that in routine drainage group (OR = 0.47, I = 43%, P < .00001). The result of the 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this pool are almost accord with the former (OR = 0.57, I = 0%, P = .05). In subgroup the result suggest that the peritoneal drainage can increase the morbidity (OR = 0.71, I = 15%, P = .0002) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), but reduce the mortality (OR = 1.92, I = 8%, P = .03) after PD. In distal pancreatectomy (DP) the rate of POPF and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-PF) is lower without drainage; there is no significant difference in the CR-PF, hospital stay, intra-abdominal abscess, radiologic invention, and the reoperation.
CONCLUSION
In the current meta-analysis, we cannot make a clear conclusion whether to abandon the routine drainage or not, but from the subgroup we can see something is safer than nothing to routine peritoneal drainage. And the patients who underwent DP can attempt to omit the drainage. But it still needs more RCTs to assess the necessity of drainage.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Drainage; Female; Humans; Male; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Risk Assessment; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29390482
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009245 -
Annals of Surgery Open : Perspectives... Mar 2022To depict and analyze learning curves for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To depict and analyze learning curves for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).
BACKGROUND
Formal training is recommended for safe introduction of pancreatic surgery but definitions of learning curves vary and have not been standardized.
METHODS
A systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in pancreatic surgery. Primary outcome was the number needed to reach the learning curve as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, methods of analysis (statistical/arbitrary), and classification of learning phases.
RESULTS
Out of 1115 articles, 66 studies with 14,206 patients were included. Thirty-five studies (53%) based the learning curve analysis on statistical calculations. Most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n = 51), blood loss (n = 17), and complications (n = 10). The number of procedures to surpass a first phase of learning curve was 30 (20-50) for open PD, 39 (11-60) for laparoscopic PD, 25 (8-100) for robotic PD ( = 0.521), 16 (3-17) for laparoscopic DP, and 15 (5-37) for robotic DP ( = 0.914). In a three-phase model, intraoperative parameters improved earlier (first to second phase: operating time -15%, blood loss -29%) whereas postoperative parameters improved later (second to third phase: complications -46%, postoperative pancreatic fistula -48%). Studies with higher sample sizes showed higher numbers of procedures needed to overcome the learning curve (rho = 0.64, < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
This study summarizes learning curves for open-, laparoscopic-, and robotic pancreatic surgery with different definitions, analysis methods, and confounding factors. A standardized reporting of learning curves and definition of phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is desirable and proposed.
PubMed: 37600094
DOI: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000111 -
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 -
Medicine Aug 2015Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) holds high postoperative morbidity. How to resolve this issue is challenged. An additional anastomosis (Braun enteroenterostomy) following... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) holds high postoperative morbidity. How to resolve this issue is challenged. An additional anastomosis (Braun enteroenterostomy) following PD may decrease the postoperative morbidity, but holds conflicting results. The objective of this study is to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of Braun enteroenterostomy in PD.Clinical studies compared perioperative outcomes between the Braun group and the non-Braun group following PD before December 21, 2014 were retrieved and filtered from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Chinese electronic databases (VIP database, WanFang database, and CNKI database). Relevant data were extracted according to predesigned sheets. Blood loss, operating time, and postoperative mortality and morbidity were evaluated using odds ratio (OR), weighted mean difference, or standard mean difference (SMD).Ten studies concerning 1614 patients were included. No significant differences between the Braun and the non-Braun group were identified in mortality (OR: 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-1.60), intraoperative blood loss (SMD: -0.035, 95% CI: -0.253 to 0.183), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.35-1.67), bile leakage (OR: 0.537, 95% CI: 0.287-1.004), postoperative gastrointestinal hemorrhage (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.578-2.385), intraabdominal abscesses (OR: 0.793, 95% CI: 0.444-1.419), wound complications (OR: 0.806, 95% CI: 0.490-1.325), and hospital stay (SMD: -0.098, 95% CI: -0.23 to 0.033). Braun enteroenterostomy extended operating time (SMD: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.02-0.78), but it was associated with lower reoperation rate (OR: 0.380, 95% CI: 0.149-0.968), lower morbidity rate (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91), lower clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying (Grades B and C) (OR: 0.375, 95% CI: 0.164-0.858), lower nasogastric tube reinsertion (OR: 0.436, 95% CI: 0.232-0.818), and less postoperative vomiting (OR: 0.444, 95% CI: 0.262-0.755).Braun enteroenterostomy can be safely performed during PD. It is beneficial for patients and could be recommended in PD from the current published data.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015016198.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Enterostomy; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Reoperation
PubMed: 26266356
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001254 -
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 -
Journal of Investigative Surgery : the... Dec 2023Our objective is to compare the early outcomes associated with passive (gravity) drainage (PG) and active drainage (AD) after surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Our objective is to compare the early outcomes associated with passive (gravity) drainage (PG) and active drainage (AD) after surgery.
METHODS
Studies published until April 28, 2022 were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Web of Science databases.
RESULTS
Nine studies with 14,169 patients were identified. Two groups had the same intra-abdominal infection rate (RR: 0.55; = 0.13); In subgroup analysis of pancreaticoduodenectomy, active drainage had no significant effect on postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate (RR: 1.21; = 0.26) and clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) (RR: 1.05; = 0.72); Active drainage was not associated with lower percutaneous drainage rate (RR: 1.00; = 0.96), incidence of sepsis (RR: 1.00; = 0.99) and overall morbidity (RR: 1.02; = 0.73). Both groups had the same POPF rate (RR: 1.20; = 0.18) and CR-POPF rate (RR: 1.20; = 0.18) after distal pancreatectomy. There was no difference between two groups on the day of drain removal after pancreaticoduodenectomy (Mean difference: -0.16; = 0.81) and liver surgery (Mean difference: 0.03; = 0.99).
CONCLUSIONS
Active drainage is not superior to passive drainage and both drainage methods can be considered.
Topics: Humans; Abdomen; Pancreas; Drainage; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Complications; Pancreaticoduodenectomy
PubMed: 37733388
DOI: 10.1080/08941939.2023.2180115