-
Cureus May 2019Seed bezoars are a distinct subcategory of phytobezoars, caused by indigestible vegetable or fruit seeds. The aim of our study was to present a comprehensive review on... (Review)
Review
Seed bezoars are a distinct subcategory of phytobezoars, caused by indigestible vegetable or fruit seeds. The aim of our study was to present a comprehensive review on seed bezoars, focusing on epidemiology, symptomatology, diagnosis and treatment options. A systematic review of the English literature (1980-2018) was conducted, using PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases. Fifty-two studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with a total of 153 patients, the majority of whom (72%) came from countries around the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. Patients complained primarily about constipation (63%), abdominal/rectal pain (19%) or intestinal obstruction (17%). Most seed bezoars were found in the rectum (78%) and the terminal ileum (16%). Risk factors were recognised in 12% of cases. Manual disimpaction under general anaesthesia was the procedure of choice in 69%, while surgery was required in 22% of cases. Seed bezoars appear to represent a different pathophysiological process compared to fibre bezoars. Seeds usually pass through the pylorus and ileocaecal valve, due to their small size, and accumulate gradually in the colon. Seed bezoars are usually found in the rectum of patients without predisposing factors, causing constipation and pain. History and digital rectal examination are the mainstay of diagnosis, with manual extraction under general anaesthesia being the procedure of choice.
PubMed: 31333915
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.4686 -
Toxins Dec 2023This systematic review investigates the effect of botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) therapy on cancer-related disorders. A major bulk of the literature is focused on BoNT's... (Review)
Review
This systematic review investigates the effect of botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) therapy on cancer-related disorders. A major bulk of the literature is focused on BoNT's effect on pain at the site of surgery or radiation. All 13 published studies on this issue indicated reduction or cessation of pain at these sites after local injection of BoNTs. Twelve studies addressed the effect of BoNT injection into the pylorus (sphincter between the stomach and the first part of the gut) for the prevention of gastroparesis after local resection of esophageal cancer. In eight studies, BoNT injection was superior to no intervention; three studies found no difference between the two approaches. One study compared the result of intra-pyloric BoNT injection with preventive pyloromyotomy (resection of pyloric muscle fibers). Both approaches reduced gastroparesis, but the surgical approach had more serious side effects. BoNT injection was superior to saline injection in the prevention of esophageal stricture after surgery (34% versus 6%, respectively, = 0.02) and produced better results (30% versus 40% stricture) compared to steroid (triamcinolone) injection close to the surgical region. All 12 reported studies on the effect of BoNT injection into the parotid region for the reduction in facial sweating during eating (gustatory hyperhidrosis) found that BoNT injections stopped or significantly reduced facial sweating that developed after parotid gland surgery. Six studies showed that BoNT injection into the parotid region prevented the development of or healed the fistulas that developed after parotid gland resection-parotidectomy gustatory hyperhidrosis (Frey syndrome), post-surgical parotid fistula, and sialocele. Eight studies suggested that BoNT injection into masseter muscle reduced or stopped severe jaw pain after the first bite (first bite syndrome) that may develop as a complication of parotidectomy.
Topics: Humans; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Sweating, Gustatory; Gastroparesis; Pain; Neoplasms
PubMed: 38133193
DOI: 10.3390/toxins15120689 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Background Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, mortality, complications and quality of life.Objectives The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.Search methods We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011 and 9 January 2014 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs),while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects(DARE) from The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1946 to January 2014); and EMBASE (1980 to January 2014). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010). We identified no additional studies upon updating the systematic review in 2014.Selection criteria We considered RCTs comparing CW versus PPW to be eligible if they included study participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.Main results We included six RCTs with a total of 465 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. In-hospital mortality (OR 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.40; P value 0.18), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P value 0.29) and morbidity showed no significant differences. However, we noted that operating time (MD -68.26 minutes, 95% CI -105.70 to -30.83; P value 0.0004) and intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.76 mL, 95%CI -0.96 to -0.56; P value < 0.00001) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results are associated with low quality of evidence as determined on the basis of GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.Authors' conclusions No evidence suggests relevant differences in mortality, morbidity and survival between the two operations. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future research must be undertaken to perform high-quality randomised controlled trials of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well-defined outcome parameters.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pylorus; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25387229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub5 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Enteral nutrition by feeding tube is a common and efficient method of providing nutritional support to prevent malnutrition in hospitalised patients who have adequate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Enteral nutrition by feeding tube is a common and efficient method of providing nutritional support to prevent malnutrition in hospitalised patients who have adequate gastrointestinal function but who are unable to eat. Gastric feeding may be associated with higher rates of food aspiration and pneumonia than post-pyloric naso-enteral tubes. Thus, enteral feeding tubes are placed directly into the small intestine rather than the stomach, and the use of metoclopramide, a prokinetic agent, has been recommended to achieve post-pyloric placement, but its efficacy is controversial. Moreover, metoclopramide may include adverse reactions, which with high doses or prolonged use may be serious and irreversible.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of intravenous metoclopramide on post-pyloric placement of the naso-enteral tube in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10) which includes the CUGPD group's specialised register of trials, MEDLINE (1996 to 21 October 2014), EMBASE (1988 to 21 October 2014), LILACS (2005 to 21 October 2014) We did not confine our search to English language publications. Searches in all databases were updated originally in January 2005, then in November 2008 and again in October 2014. No new studies were found in 2008 or in 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials of adults needing enteral nutrition, who received intravenous or intramuscular metoclopramide to aid placement of transpyloric naso-enteral feeding tubes, compared to placebo or no intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. We present risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
Four studies, with a total of 204 participants were included and analysed. The trials compared metoclopramide with placebo (two trials) or with no intervention (two trials). Metoclopramide was investigated at doses of 10 mg (two trials) and 20 mg (two trials). There was no statistically significant difference between metoclopramide versus placebo or no intervention administered to promote tube placement (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10). Metoclopramide at doses of 10 mg (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.11) and 20 mg (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.62) were equally ineffective in facilitating post-pyloric intubation when compared with placebo or no intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this review, we found only four studies that fitted our inclusion criteria. These were small, underpowered studies, in which metoclopramide was given at doses of 10 mg and 20 mg. Our analysis showed that metoclopramide did not assist post-pyloric placement of naso-enteral feeding tubes.Ideally randomised clinical trials should be performed that have a significant sample size, administering metoclopramide against control, however, given the lack of efficacy revealed by this review it is unlikely that further studies will be performed.
Topics: Antiemetics; Duodenum; Enteral Nutrition; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Jejunum; Metoclopramide; Pylorus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25564770
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003353.pub2 -
Annals of Anatomy = Anatomischer... Aug 2023The infrapyloric artery (IPA) supplies the pylorus and the large curvature of the antrum. Its common origin points include the gastroduodenal artery (GDA) and right... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The infrapyloric artery (IPA) supplies the pylorus and the large curvature of the antrum. Its common origin points include the gastroduodenal artery (GDA) and right gastroepiploic artery (RGEA). The prevalence of variations in IPA origins can be of interest to gastric cancer surgeons who wish to increase their understanding of this vessel. The primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the origin of the IPA. The secondary aims were to assess imaging identification accuracy, to identify IPA morphological features, and to explore the relationship of IPA origin and clinicopathological characteristics.
METHODS
Electronic databases, currently registered studies, conference proceedings and the reference lists of included studies were searched through March 2023. There were no constraints based on language, publication status, or patient demographics. Database search, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. The point of origin of the IPA was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were imaging identification accuracy, relationship between IPA origin and clinicopathological characteristics, and IPA morphological features. A random-effects meta-analysis of the prevalence of different IPA origins was conducted. Secondary outcomes were narratively synthesized given the heterogeneity of studies reporting on these.
RESULTS
A total of 7279 records were screened in the initial search. Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis, assessing 998 patients. The IPA arose most frequently from the anterior superior pancreaticoduodenal artery (ASPDA), with a pooled prevalence of 40.4% (95% CI 17.1-55.8%), followed by the RGEA with a pooled prevalence of 27.6% (95% CI 8.7-43.7%), and the GDA with a pooled prevalence of 23.7% (95% CI 6.4-39.7%). Cases of multiple IPAs had a pooled prevalence of 4.9% (95% CI 0-14.3%). The IPA was absent in 2.6% (95% CI 0-10.3%) of cases and arose from the posterior superior pancreaticoduodenal artery (PSPDA) in the remaining 0.8% (95% CI 0 - 6.1%). Distance between the pylorus and the proximal branch of the IPA and distance from the pylorus to the first gastric branch of the RGEA when the IPA originated from the ASPDA and RGEA were longer than when the IPA originated from the GDA. The IPA is a small vessel (<1 mm), and its origin is not related to clinicopathological characteristics including patient sex, age, and tumor stage and location.
CONCLUSIONS
Surgeons must be aware of the most common origin points of the IPA. Recommendations for future study include the stratification of IPA origin according to demographic characteristics, and further investigation into IPA morphological parameters such as tortuosity, course and relation to adjacent lymph nodes, aiding the creation of a standardized classification system pertaining to the anatomy of this vessel.
Topics: Humans; Pylorus; Stomach Neoplasms; Lymph Nodes; Hepatic Artery
PubMed: 37207852
DOI: 10.1016/j.aanat.2023.152109 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Sep 2022Pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) is a function-preserving surgery for the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC) in the middle third of the stomach. According to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) is a function-preserving surgery for the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC) in the middle third of the stomach. According to the literature reports, PPG decreases the incidence of dumping syndrome, bile reflux, gallstone formation, and nutritional deficit compared with conventional distal gastrectomy (CDG). However, the debates about PPG have been dominated by the incomplete lymphadenectomy and oncological safety. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the pathological and oncological outcomes of PPG.
METHODS
The protocol was registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42022304677. Databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched before February 21, 2022. The outcomes included the pooled odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous variables and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous variables. For all outcomes, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA software (Stata 14, Stata Corporation, Texas) and Review Manager 5.4.
RESULTS
A total of 4500 patients from 16 studies were included. Compared with the CDG group, the PPG group had fewer lymph nodes harvested (WMD= -3.09; 95% CI -4.75 to -1.43; P < 0.001). Differences in the number of resected lymph nodes were observed at stations No. 5, No. 6, No. 9, and No. 11p. There were no differences in lymph node metastasis at each station. Shorter proximal resection margins (WMD = -0.554; 95% CI -0.999 to -0.108; P = 0.015) and distal resection margins (WMD = -1.569; 95% CI -3.132 to -0.007; P = 0.049) were observed in the PPG group. There were no significant differences in pathological T1a stage (OR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; P = 0.88), T1b stage (OR = 1.01; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.26; P = 0.88), N0 stage (OR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.48; P = 0.88), tumor size (WMD = -0.10; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.05; P = 0.187), differentiated carcinoma (OR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.47; P = 0.812) or signet ring cell carcinoma (OR = 1.22; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.64; P = 0.198). No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.67; P = 0.852) or recurrence-free survival (HR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.03 to 2.67; P = 0.900).
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis of existing evidence demonstrated that the survival outcomes of PPG may be comparable to those of CDG. However, fewer lymph nodes at stations in No. 5, No. 6, No. 9, and No. 11p were harvested with PPG. We also found shorter proximal resection margins and distal resection margins for PPG, meaning more remnant stomachs would be preserved in PPG.
Topics: Gastrectomy; Gastroenterostomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Margins of Excision; Pylorus; Stomach Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36153587
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-022-02766-0 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2023In this systemic review and network meta-analysis, we investigated pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD), and different... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
In this systemic review and network meta-analysis, we investigated pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD), and different modifications of duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) to evaluate the efficacy of different surgical procedures.
METHODS
A systemic search of six databases was conducted to identify studies comparing PD, PPPD, and DPPHR for treating pancreatic head benign and low-grade malignant lesions. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were performed to compare different surgical procedures.
RESULTS
A total of 44 studies were enrolled in the final synthesis. Three categories of a total of 29 indexes were investigated. The DPPHR group had better working ability, physical status, less loss of body weight, and less postoperative discomfort than the Whipple group, while both groups had no differences in quality of life (QoL), pain scale scores, and other 11 indexes. Network meta-analysis of a single procedure found that DPPHR had a larger probability of best performance in seven of eight analyzed indexes than PD or PPPD.
CONCLUSION
DPPHR and PD/PPPD have equal effects on improving QoL and pain relief, while PD/PPPD has more severe symptoms and more complications after surgery. PD, PPPD, and DPPHR procedures exhibit different strengths in treating pancreatic head benign and low-grade malignant lesions.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022342427.
PubMed: 37066008
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1107613 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, postoperative mortality, complications, and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011, 9 January 2014, and 18 August 2015 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases on 18 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE (1946 to August 2015); and EMBASE (1980 to August 2015). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010); we did not update this part of the search for the 2014 and 2015 updates because the prior searches did not contribute any additional information. We identified two additional trials through the updated search in 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing CW versus PPW including participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs), and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included trials according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with a total of 512 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. Postoperative mortality (OR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.54; P = 0.32), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P = 0.29), and morbidity showed no significant differences, except of delayed gastric emptying, which significantly favoured CW (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.05 to 8.70; P = 0.04). Furthermore, we noted that operating time (MD -45.22 minutes, 95% CI -74.67 to -15.78; P = 0.003), intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.32 L, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.03; P = 0.03), and red blood cell transfusion (MD -0.47 units, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.07; P = 0.02) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results were associated with low-quality evidence based on GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests no relevant differences in mortality, morbidity, and survival between the two operations. However, some perioperative outcome measures significantly favour the PPW procedure. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future high-quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions based on well-defined outcome parameters are required.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Female; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Male; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pylorus; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26905229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Surgical excision by removal of the head of the pancreas to decompress the obstructed ducts is one of the treatment options for people with symptomatic chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical excision by removal of the head of the pancreas to decompress the obstructed ducts is one of the treatment options for people with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis. Surgical excision of the head of the pancreas can be performed by excision of the duodenum along with the head of the pancreas (pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD)) or without excision of the duodenum (duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR)). There is currently no consensus on the method of pancreatic head resection in people with chronic pancreatitis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection versus pancreaticoduodenectomy in people with chronic pancreatitis for whom pancreatic resection is considered the main treatment option.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to June 2015 to identify randomised trials. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCT) performed in people with chronic pancreatitis undergoing pancreatic head resection, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), rate ratio (RaR), or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an available-case analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials including 292 participants met the inclusion criteria for the review. After exclusion of 23 participants mainly due to pancreatic cancer or because participants did not receive the planned treatment, a total of 269 participants (with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis involving the head of pancreas and requiring surgery) were randomly assigned to receive DPPHR (135 participants) or PD (134 participants). The trials did not report the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status of the participants. All the trials were single-centre trials and included people with and without obstructive jaundice and people with and without duodenal stenosis but did not report data separately for those with and without jaundice or those with and without duodenal stenosis. The surgical procedures compared in the five trials included DPPHR (Beger or Frey procedures, or wide local excision of the head of the pancreas) and PD (pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy or Whipple procedure). The participants were followed up for various periods of time ranging from one to 15 years. The trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low.The differences in short-term mortality (up to 90 days after surgery) (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.31 to 26.87; 369 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 2/135 (1.5%) versus PD: 0/134 (0%); very low quality evidence) or long-term mortality (maximal follow-up) (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.34; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), medium-term (three months to five years) (only a narrative summary was possible; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), or long-term quality of life (more than five years) (MD 8.45, 95% CI -0.27 to 17.18; 101 participants; 2 studies; low quality evidence), proportion of people with adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.35; 226 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 23/113 (adjusted proportion 20%) versus PD: 41/113 (36.3%); very low quality evidence), number of people with adverse events (RaR 0.95, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.12; 43 participants; 1 study; DPPHR: 12/22 (54.3 events per 100 participants) versus PD: 12/21 (57.1 events per 100 participants); very low quality evidence), proportion of people employed (maximal follow-up) (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.37; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 65/98 (adjusted proportion 69.4%) versus PD: 41/91 (45.1%); low quality evidence), incidence proportion of diabetes mellitus (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.22; 269 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 25/135 (adjusted proportion 18.6%) versus PD: 32/134 (23.9%); very low quality evidence), and prevalence proportion of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 62/98 (adjusted proportion 62.0%) versus PD: 68/91 (74.7%); very low quality evidence) were imprecise. The length of hospital stay appeared to be lower with DPPHR compared to PD and ranged between a reduction of one day and five days in the trials (208 participants; 4 studies; low quality evidence). None of the trials reported short-term quality of life (four weeks to three months), clinically significant pancreatic fistulas, serious adverse events, time to return to normal activity, time to return to work, and pain scores using a visual analogue scale.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low quality evidence suggested that DPPHR may result in shorter hospital stay than PD. Based on low or very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence of any difference in the mortality, adverse events, or quality of life between DPPHR and PD. However, the results were imprecise and further RCTs are required on this topic. Future RCTs comparing DPPHR with PD should report the severity as well as the incidence of postoperative complications and their impact on patient recovery. In such trials, participant and observer blinding should be performed and the analysis should be performed on an intention-to-treat basis to decrease the bias. In addition to the short-term benefits and harms such as mortality, surgery-related complications, quality of life, length of hospital stay, return to normal activity, and return to work, future trials should consider linkage of trial participants to health databases, social databases, and mortality registers to obtain the long-term benefits and harms of the different treatments.
Topics: Duodenum; Humans; Length of Stay; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26837472
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011521.pub2