-
Cancers Sep 2023Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of postoperative pancreatic insufficiency. The robotic platform is increasingly being used for these procedures. We sought to evaluate robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy and assess its complication profile and efficacy.
METHODS
This systematic review consisted of all studies on robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy (central pancreatectomy, duodenum-preserving partial pancreatic head resection, enucleation, and uncinate resection) published between January 2001 and December 2022 in PubMed and Embase.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies were included in this review ( = 788). Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy is being performed worldwide for benign or indolent pancreatic lesions. When compared to the open approach, robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomies led to a longer average operative time, shorter length of stay, and higher estimated intraoperative blood loss. Postoperative pancreatic fistula is common, but severe complications requiring intervention are exceedingly rare. Long-term complications such as endocrine and exocrine insufficiency are nearly nonexistent.
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy appears to have a higher risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula but is rarely associated with severe or long-term complications. Careful patient selection is required to maximize benefits and minimize morbidity.
PubMed: 37686648
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15174369 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2023The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.
METHOD
The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.
CONCLUSION
Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Retrospective Studies; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Pancreas; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 37572127
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03017-w -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2023The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety and effectiveness regarding outcomes of minimally invasive total pancreatectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety and effectiveness regarding outcomes of minimally invasive total pancreatectomy (MITP) versus open total pancreatectomy (OTP).
BACKGROUND
Total pancreatectomy is a complicated operation in abdominal surgery. The flexibility of minimally invasive surgery offers a new surgical approach to this technology. At present, there is little research on MITP, and its advantages over OTP remain uncertain.
METHODS
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted basing on comparative studies between MITP and OTP from January 1943 to November 2022. Intraoperative outcomes and postoperative outcomes were assessed. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences with a 95% CI were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models under heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Seven studies with a total of 4275 patients were included. The major morbidity in the MITP group was significant lower (OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.30-0.84, P=0.008, I²= 0%) than OTP group. At the same time, comparing with OTP, the MITP group had lower estimated blood loss (MD -362.50, 95% CI -641.34 to -83.66, P=0.01, I²=96%) and lower intraoperative transfusion rate (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16-0.84, P=0.02, I²=0%). There were no significant differences between the MITP and OTP groups for other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggested that MITP was associated with lower major morbidity, estimated blood loss, and intraoperative transfusion rate comparing with OTP. However, the further evidence with a better design is required.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Blood Loss, Surgical; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Length of Stay; Blood Transfusion; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37485920
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000392 -
Annals of Surgery Oct 2023Examine the potential benefit of total pancreatectomy (TP) as an alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Role of Total Pancreatectomy as an Alternative to Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients at High Risk for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: Is it a Justifiable Indication?
OBJECTIVE
Examine the potential benefit of total pancreatectomy (TP) as an alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA
TP is mentioned as an alternative to PD in patients at high risk for POPF, but a systematic review is lacking.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analyses using Pubmed, Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane Library to identify studies published up to October 2022, comparing elective single-stage TP for any indication versus PD in patients at high risk for POPF. The primary endpoint was short-term mortality. Secondary endpoints were major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) on the short-term and quality of life.
RESULTS
After screening 1212 unique records, five studies with 707 patients (334 TP and 373 high-risk PD) met the eligibility criteria, comprising one randomized controlled trial and four observational studies. The 90-day mortality after TP and PD did not differ (6.3% vs. 6.2%; RR=1.04 [95%CI 0.56-1.93]). Major morbidity rate was lower after TP compared to PD (26.7% vs. 38.3%; RR=0.65 [95%CI 0.48-0.89]), but no significance was seen in matched/randomized studies (29.0% vs. 36.9%; RR = 0.73 [95%CI 0.48-1.10]). Two studies investigated quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) at a median of 30-52 months, demonstrating comparable global health status after TP and PD (77% [±15] vs. 76% [±20]; P =0.857).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis found no reduction in short-term mortality and major morbidity after TP as compared to PD in patients at high risk for POPF. However, if TP is used as a bail-out procedure, the comparable long-term quality of life is reassuring.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Quality of Life; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37161977
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005895 -
International Journal of Surgery... Dec 2023Pancreatic cancer frequently involves the surrounding major arteries, preventing surgeons from making a radical excision. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) can lessen the size... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Perioperative and long-term survival outcomes of pancreatectomy with arterial resection in borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer following neoadjuvant therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer frequently involves the surrounding major arteries, preventing surgeons from making a radical excision. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) can lessen the size of local tumors and eliminate potential micrommetastases. However, systematic and evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of arterial resection (AR) after NAT in pancreatic cancer are scarce.
METHOD
A computerized search of the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and Clinicaltrials was performed to identify studies reporting the outcomes of patients who underwent pancreatectomy with AR and NAT for pancreatic cancer. Studies that reported perioperative and/or long-term results after pancreatectomy with AR and NAT were eligible for inclusion. The quality of the evidence was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form of bias tool. Data were pooled and analyzed by Stata 14.0 software.
RESULT
Nine studies with an overall sample size of 215 met our eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. All studies were retrospective studies, and the methodological quality was moderate. The pooled morbidity and mortality rates were 51% (95% CI: 41-61%; I²= 0.0%) and 2% (95% CI: 0-0.08; I²=33.3%), respectively. Meta-analysis showed that the overall R0 resection rate was 79% (CI: 70-86%, I²=15.5%). Comparative data on R0 rates of patients who underwent pancreatectomy with and without NAT showed a significant difference in favor of the former group with moderate statistical heterogeneity (Relative risk=1.21; 95% CI: 0.776-1.915; I²=48.0%). The median 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of patients who had AR were 92.3% (range: 72.7-100%), 64.8% (range: 25-78.8%), 51.6% (range: 16.7-63.6%), and 14% (range: 0-41.1%), respectively. Data on median progression-free survival ranged from 5.25 to 36.3 months, and the median overall survival ranged from 17 to 44.9 months.
CONCLUSIONS
Pancreatectomy with major AR following NAT has the potential to enhance the survival rate of patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer involving the arteries by achieving R0 resection, despite a significant risk of postoperative complications. However, to validate the feasibility and effectiveness of this procedure, prospective controlled studies are necessary to address limitations arising from small sample sizes and potential biases inherent in retrospective studies.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Arteries; Neoplasms, Second Primary
PubMed: 38259002
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000742 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Oct 2023Postoperative complications following distal pancreatectomy (DP) are common, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). In order to design adequate prophylactic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative complications following distal pancreatectomy (DP) are common, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). In order to design adequate prophylactic strategies, it is of relevance to determine the costs of these complications. An overview of the literature on the costs of complications following DP is lacking.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (inception until 1 August 2022). The primary outcome was the costs (i.e. cost differential) of major morbidity, individual complications and prolonged hospital stay. Quality of non-RCTs were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Costs were compared with the use of Purchasing Power parity. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021223019).
RESULTS
Overall, seven studies were included with 854 patients after DP. The rate POPF grade B/C varied between 13% and 27% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 18,389 (based on two studies). The rate of severe morbidity varied between 13% and 38% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 19,281 (based on five studies).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review reported considerable costs for POPF grade B/C and severe morbidity after DP. Prospective databases and studies should report on all complications in a uniform matter to better display the economic burden of complications of DP.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula; Postoperative Complications; Morbidity; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37391314
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.03.007 -
Annals of Surgery Feb 2024To provide procedure-specific estimates of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding after abdominal surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of the Procedure-specific Risks of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General Abdominal, Colorectal, Upper Gastrointestinal, and Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery.
OBJECTIVE
To provide procedure-specific estimates of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding after abdominal surgery.
BACKGROUND
The use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis represents a trade-off that depends on VTE and bleeding risks that vary between procedures; their magnitude remains uncertain.
METHODS
We identified observational studies reporting procedure-specific risks of symptomatic VTE or major bleeding after abdominal surgery, adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up, and estimated cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery, stratified by VTE risk groups, and rated evidence certainty.
RESULTS
After eligibility screening, 285 studies (8,048,635 patients) reporting on 40 general abdominal, 36 colorectal, 15 upper gastrointestinal, and 24 hepatopancreatobiliary surgery procedures proved eligible. Evidence certainty proved generally moderate or low for VTE and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk of VTE varied substantially among procedures: in general abdominal surgery from a median of <0.1% in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to a median of 3.7% in open small bowel resection, in colorectal from 0.3% in minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy to 10.0% in emergency open total proctocolectomy, and in upper gastrointestinal/hepatopancreatobiliary from 0.2% in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to 6.8% in open distal pancreatectomy for cancer.
CONCLUSIONS
VTE thromboprophylaxis provides net benefit through VTE reduction with a small increase in bleeding in some procedures (eg, open colectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy), whereas the opposite is true in others (eg, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and elective groin hernia repairs). In many procedures, thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding VTE and bleeding.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Colorectal Neoplasms; Hemorrhage; Postoperative Complications; Thrombosis; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 37551583
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006059 -
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 -
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 -
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