-
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 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery May 2023Secondary aortoduodenal fistulae (SADF) are uncommon but life-threatening conditions that occur as complications of aortic reconstructive surgery. Data on the mortality... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Secondary aortoduodenal fistulae (SADF) are uncommon but life-threatening conditions that occur as complications of aortic reconstructive surgery. Data on the mortality and morbidity of procedures associated with SADF remain scarce.
METHODS
Comprehensive literature search was conducted on the MedLine, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Knowledge databases for cases of SADF. Data regarding patient demographics, fistula anatomy and treatment interventions performed were extracted for further analysis.
RESULTS
The study pool consisted of 127 case reports, 28 case series and 1 retrospective study published between 1973 and 2021. A total of 189 patients were operated for SADF. Among the 189 patients, 141 patients (74.6%) had aortic graft excision, 26 (13.8%) aortic primary repair, and 22 (11.6%) EVAR. Although patients undergoing EVAR were older with higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, compared with patients who had graft excision and primary aortic repair these differences were not statistically significant (P = .12 and P = .22, respectively). Primary bowel repair was performed in 145 patients (76.7%), duodenectomy in 25 (13.2%), and no bowel repair in 19 (10.1%). Additional omentoplasty was performed in 65 patients (34.6%). Mortality was comparable with respect to the type of aortic and bowel repair, with no statistically significant differences recorded (P = .54 and P = .77, respectively). Omentoplasty significantly decreased the risk of death (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.8, P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS
Optimal operative management should address both the aortic and duodenal defects and be complemented with appropriate reconstructive procedures. Endovascular aortic approaches seem feasible in carefully select patients in whom duodenal repair may be omitted.
Topics: Humans; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Retrospective Studies; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endovascular Procedures; Intestinal Fistula; Treatment Outcome; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36343874
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.10.055 -
International Journal of Clinical... Mar 2021It is well known that surgery is the mainstay treatment for duodenal adenocarcinoma. However, the optimal extent of surgery is still under debate. We aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
It is well known that surgery is the mainstay treatment for duodenal adenocarcinoma. However, the optimal extent of surgery is still under debate. We aimed to systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of limited resection (LR) and pancreatoduodenectomy for patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma. A systematic electronic database search of the literature was performed using PubMed and the Cochrane Library. All studies comparing LR and pancreatoduodenectomy for patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma were selected. Long-term overall survival was considered as the primary outcome, and perioperative morbidity and mortality as the secondary outcomes. Fifteen studies with a total of 3166 patients were analyzed; 995 and 1498 patients were treated with limited resection and pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Eight and 7 studies scored a low and intermediate risk of publication bias, respectively. The LR group had a more favorable result than the pancreatoduodenectomy group in overall morbidity (odd ratio [OR]: 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-0.65) and postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.13, 95% CI 0.04-0.43). Mortality (OR: 0.96, 95% CI 0.70-1.33) and overall survival (OR: 0.61, 95% CI 0.33-1.13) were not significantly different between the two groups, although comparison of the two groups stratified by prognostic factors, such as T categories, was not possible due to a lack of detailed data. LR showed long-term outcomes equivalent to those of pancreatoduodenectomy, while the perioperative morbidity rates were lower. LR could be an option for selected duodenal adenocarcinoma patients with appropriate location or depth of invasion, although further studies are required.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Anastomosis, Surgical; Duodenal Neoplasms; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy
PubMed: 33386555
DOI: 10.1007/s10147-020-01840-5 -
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 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Nov 2023Pancreatic benign, cystic, and neuroendocrine neoplasms are increasingly detected and recommended for surgical treatment. In multiorgan resection pancreatoduodenectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic benign, cystic, and neuroendocrine neoplasms are increasingly detected and recommended for surgical treatment. In multiorgan resection pancreatoduodenectomy or parenchyma-sparing, local extirpation is a challenge for decision-making regarding surgery-related early and late postoperative morbidity.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Libraries were searched for studies reporting early surgery-related complications following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and duodenum-preserving total (DPPHRt) or partial (DPPHRp) pancreatic head resection for benign tumors. Thirty-four cohort studies comprising data from 1099 patients were analyzed. In total, 654 patients underwent DPPHR and 445 patients PD for benign tumors. This review and meta-analysis does not need ethical approval.
RESULTS
Comparing DPPHRt and PD, the need for blood transfusion (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10-0.41, p<0.01), re-intervention for serious surgery-related complications (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31-0.73, p<0.001), and re-operation for severe complications (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26-0.95, p=0.04) were significantly less frequent following DPPHRt. Pancreatic fistula B+C (19.0 to 15.3%, p=0.99) and biliary fistula (6.3 to 4.3%; p=0.33) were in the same range following PD and DPPHRt. In-hospital mortality after DPPHRt was one of 350 patients (0.28%) and after PD eight of 445 patients (1.79%) (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10-1.09, p=0.07). Following DPPHRp, there was no mortality among the 192 patients.
CONCLUSION
DPPHR for benign pancreatic tumors is associated with significantly fewer surgery-related, serious, and severe postoperative complications and lower in-hospital mortality compared to PD. Tailored use of DPPHRt or DPPHRp contributes to a reduction of surgery-related complications. DPPHR has the potential to replace PD for benign tumors and premalignant cystic and neuroendocrine neoplasms of the pancreatic head.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreas; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Duodenum; Neuroendocrine Tumors; Pancreatic Cyst
PubMed: 37670106
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-023-05789-4 -
Journal of Pediatric Surgery Sep 2021Surgical site infections (SSI) are a frequent and significant problem understudied in infants operated for abdominal birth defects. Different forms of SSIs exist, namely... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infections (SSI) are a frequent and significant problem understudied in infants operated for abdominal birth defects. Different forms of SSIs exist, namely wound infection, wound dehiscence, anastomotic leakage, post-operative peritonitis and fistula development. These complications can extend hospital stay, surge medical costs and increase mortality. If the incidence was known, it would provide context for clinical decision making and aid future research. Therefore, this review aims to aggregate the available literature on the incidence of different SSIs forms in infants who needed surgery for abdominal birth defects.
METHOD
The electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched in February 2020. Studies describing infectious complications in infants (under three years of age) were considered eligible. Primary outcome was the incidence of SSIs in infants. SSIs were categorized in wound infection, wound dehiscence, anastomotic leakage, postoperative peritonitis, and fistula development. Secondary outcome was the incidence of different forms of SSIs depending on the type of birth defect. Meta-analysis was performed pooling reported incidences in total and per birth defect separately.
RESULTS
154 studies, representing 11,786 patients were included. The overall pooled percentage of wound infections after abdominal birth defect surgery was 6% (95%-CI:0.05-0.07) ranging from 1% (95% CI:0.00-0.05) for choledochal cyst surgery to 10% (95%-CI:0.06-0.15) after gastroschisis surgery. Wound dehiscence occurred in 4% (95%-CI:0.03-0.07) of the infants, ranging from 1% (95%-CI:0.00-0.03) after surgery for duodenal obstruction to 6% (95%-CI:0.04-0.08) after surgery for gastroschisis. Anastomotic leakage had an overall pooled percentage of 3% (95%-CI:0.02-0.05), ranging from 1% (95%-CI:0.00-0.04) after surgery for duodenal obstruction to 14% (95% CI:0.06-0.27) after colon atresia surgery. Postoperative peritonitis and fistula development could not be specified per birth defect and had an overall pooled percentage of 3% (95%-CI:0.01-0.09) and 2% (95%-CI:0.01-0.04).
CONCLUSIONS
This review has systematically shown that SSIs are common after correction for abdominal birth defects and that the distribution of SSI differs between birth defects.
Topics: Abdomen; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 33485614
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021.01.018 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Oct 2022Post-pancreatectomy bleeding is a potentially fatal complication which results from the erosion of the regional visceral arteries, mainly the hepatic artery and stump of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Post-pancreatectomy bleeding is a potentially fatal complication which results from the erosion of the regional visceral arteries, mainly the hepatic artery and stump of the gastro-duodenal artery, caused by a leak or fistula from the pancreatic anastomosis. The objective of this article is to assess whether wrapping of regional vessels with omentum or falciform/teres ligament following pancreaticoduodenectomy reduces the risk of extra-luminal bleeding.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
Standard medical electronic databases were searched with the help of a local librarian and relevant published randomised controlled trials (RCT) and any type of comparative trial were shortlisted according to the inclusion criteria. The summated outcome of post-operative extra-luminal bleeding in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy was evaluated using the principles of meta-analysis on RevMan 5 statistical software.
RESULT
Two RCTs and 5 retrospective studies on 4100 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were found suitable for this meta-analysis. There were 1404 patients in the wrapping-group (WG) and 2696 patients in the no-wrapping group (NWG). In the random effects model analysis, the incidence of extra-luminal haemorrhage was statistically lower in WG [odds ratio 0.51, 95%, CI (0.31, 0.85), Z = 2.59, P = 0.01]. There was moderate heterogeneity between the studies; however it was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
The wrapping of regional vessels (using omentum, falciform ligament or ligamentum teres) following pancreaticoduodenectomy seems to reduce the risk of post-operative extra-luminal bleeding. However, more RCTs of robust quality recruiting a greater number of patients are required to validate these findings as this study presents the combined data of two RCTs and 5 retrospective studies.
PubMed: 36268446
DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104618 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jun 2020Although several non-randomized studies comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) recently demonstrated that the two... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with benign and malignant periampullary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes.
BACKGROUND
Although several non-randomized studies comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) recently demonstrated that the two operative techniques could be equivalent in terms of safety outcomes and short-term oncologic efficacy, no definitive answer has arrived yet to the question as to whether robotic assistance can contribute to reducing the high rate of postoperative morbidity.
METHODS
Systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases. Prospective and retrospective studies comparing RPD and OPD as surgical treatment for periampullary benign and malignant lesions were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis with no limits of language or year of publication.
RESULTS
18 non-randomized studies were included for quantitative synthesis with 13,639 patients allocated to RPD (n = 1593) or OPD (n = 12,046). RPD and OPD showed equivalent results in terms of mortality (3.3% vs 2.8%; P = 0.84), morbidity (64.4% vs 68.1%; P = 0.12), pancreatic fistula (17.9% vs 15.9%; P = 0.81), delayed gastric emptying (16.8% vs 16.1%; P = 0.98), hemorrhage (11% vs 14.6%; P = 0.43), and bile leak (5.1% vs 3.5%; P = 0.35). Estimated intra-operative blood loss was significantly lower in the RPD group (352.1 ± 174.1 vs 588.4 ± 219.4; P = 0.0003), whereas operative time was significantly longer for RPD compared to OPD (461.1 ± 84 vs 384.2 ± 73.8; P = 0.0004). RPD and OPD showed equivalent results in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (19.1 ± 9.9 vs 17.3 ± 9.9; P = 0.22) and positive margin status (13.3% vs 16.1%; P = 0.32).
CONCLUSIONS
RPD is safe and feasible as surgical treatment for malignant or benign disease of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region. Equivalency in terms of surgical radicality including R0 curative resection and number of harvested lymph nodes between the two groups confirmed the reliability of RPD from an oncologic point of view.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Humans; Operative Time; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 32072286
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07460-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinomas account for some of the most aggressive malignancies, and the leading causes of cancer-related mortalities. Partial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinomas account for some of the most aggressive malignancies, and the leading causes of cancer-related mortalities. Partial pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with negative resection margins is the only potentially curative therapy. The high prevalence of lymph node metastases has led to the hypothesis that wider excision with the removal of more lymphatic tissue could result in an improvement of survival, and higher rates of negative resection margins.
OBJECTIVES
To compare overall survival following standard (SLA) versus extended lymph lymphadenectomy (ELA) for pancreatic head and periampullary adenocarcinoma. We also compared secondary outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, and tumour involvement of the resection margins between the two procedures.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase from 1973 to September 2020; we applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing PD with SLA versus PD with ELA, including participants with pancreatic head and periampullary adenocarcinoma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened references and extracted data from study reports. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for most binary outcomes except for postoperative mortality, for which we estimated a Peto odds ratio (Peto OR), and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. We used a fixed-effect model in the absence of substantial heterogeneity (I² < 25%), and a random-effects model in cases of substantial heterogeneity (I² > 25%). Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias, and we used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for important outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies with 843 participants (421 ELA and 422 SLA). All seven studies included Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival. There was little or no difference in survival between groups (log hazard ratio (log HR) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.06 to 3.31; P = 0.94; seven studies, 843 participants; very low-quality evidence). There was little or no difference in postoperative mortality between the groups (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.20, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.80; seven studies, 843 participants; low-quality evidence). Operating time was probably longer for ELA (mean difference (MD) 50.13 minutes, 95% CI 19.19 to 81.06 minutes; five studies, 670 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was substantial heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 88%; P < 0.00001). There may have been more blood loss during ELA (MD 137.43 mL, 95% CI 11.55 to 263.30 mL; two studies, 463 participants; very low-quality evidence). There was substantial heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 81%, P = 0.02). There may have been more lymph nodes retrieved during ELA (MD 11.09 nodes, 95% CI 7.16 to 15.02; five studies, 670 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was substantial heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 81%, P < 0.00001). There was little or no difference in the incidence of positive resection margins between groups (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.13; six studies, 783 participants; very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence of an impact on survival with extended versus standard lymph node resection. However, the operating time may have been longer and blood loss greater in the extended resection group. In conclusion, current evidence neither supports nor refutes the effect of extended lymph lymphadenectomy in people with adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Confidence Intervals; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Lymph Node Excision; Margins of Excision; Operative Time; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33471373
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011490.pub2 -
Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi =... Feb 2023Radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer results in various post-operative complications, and the influencing factors are complicated. The diagnosis, treatment and...
Radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer results in various post-operative complications, and the influencing factors are complicated. The diagnosis, treatment and prevention of common complications have been reported in many literatures. However, there are few reports on the prevention and treatment of rare complications. Rare complications after radical gastrectomy are often overlooked due to their low incidence. In addition, there are few guidelines and expert consensus regarding to the rare complications. Therefore, clinicians may lack experience in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of rare complications after radical gastrectomy. Based on the literature review and the author's experience, this article systematically reviews seven rare complications after radical gastrectomy (duodenal stump fistula, pancreatic fistula, chyle leakage, esophagomediastinal fistula, internal hernia, gastroparesis, and intussusception). This article aims to provide a comprehensive reference for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of rare complications after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients.
Topics: Humans; Stomach Neoplasms; Gastrectomy; Postoperative Complications; Duodenal Diseases; Laparoscopy; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36797559
DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn441530-20221102-00448