-
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Jan 2021This systematic review was undertaken to define and summarize existing, proposed quality performance indicators (QPI) for hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) procedures. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review was undertaken to define and summarize existing, proposed quality performance indicators (QPI) for hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) procedures.
METHODS
A systematic literature review identified studies reporting on quality indicators for cholecystectomy, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy and complex biliary surgical procedures. The databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and SCOPUS, with all literature available until the search date of 1 May 2020 included. The reference lists of all included papers, as well as related review articles, were manually searched to identify further relevant studies.
RESULTS
Forty-five publications report quality indicators for pancreatectomy (n = 22), hepatectomy (n = 7), HPB resections in general (n = 12), and cholecystectomy (n = 6). No publications proposed QPI for complex biliary surgery. The 45 papers used national audit (n = 18), consensus methodology (n = 5), state-wide audit (n = 3), unit audit (n = 9), review methodology (n = 9), and survey methodology (n = 1). Sixty-one QPI were reported for pancreatectomy, 22 reported for hepatectomy, and 14 reported for HPB resections in general, in domains of infrastructure, provider, and documentation. Fourteen infrastructure and provider-based QPI were reported for cholecystectomy.
CONCLUSIONS
There are few internationally agreed QPI for HPB procedures that allow global comparison of provider performance and that set aspirational goals for patient care and experience.
Topics: Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures; Databases, Factual; Hepatectomy; Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy
PubMed: 33158749
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.10.013 -
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 -
Pancreatology : Official Journal of the... Sep 2022In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients with suspected venous infiltration, a R0 resection is most of the time not possible without venous resection (VR). To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients with suspected venous infiltration, a R0 resection is most of the time not possible without venous resection (VR). To investigate this special kind of patients, this meta-analysis was conducted to compare mortality, morbidity and long-term survival of pancreatic resections with (VR+) and without venous resection (VR-).
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in Embase, Pubmed and Web of Science. Studies which compared over twenty patients with VR + to VR-for PDAC with ≥1 year follow up were included. Articles including arterial resections were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed with the random effect Mantel-Haenszel test and inversed variance method. Individual patient data was compared with the log-rank test.
RESULTS
Following a review of 6403 papers by title and abstract and 166 by full text, a meta-analysis was conducted of 32 studies describing 2216 VR+ and 5380 VR-. There was significantly more post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (6.5% vs. 5.6%), R1 resections (36.7% vs. 28.6%), N1 resections (70.3% vs. 66.8%) and tumors were significantly larger (34.6 mm vs. 32.8 mm) in patients with VR+. Of all VR + patients, 64.6% had true pathological venous infiltration. The 90-day mortality, individual patient data for overall survival and pooled multivariate hazard ratio for overall survival were similar.
CONCLUSION
VR is a safe and feasible option in patients with pancreatic cancer and suspicion of venous involvement, since VR during pancreatic surgery has comparable overall survival and complication rates.
Topics: Humans; Mesenteric Veins; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Portal Vein; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35697587
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2022.05.001 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2023Reducing clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) incidence after pancreatic resections has been a topic of great academic interest. Optimizing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Reducing clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) incidence after pancreatic resections has been a topic of great academic interest. Optimizing post-operative drain management is a potential strategy in reducing this major complication.
METHODS
Studies involving pancreatic resections, including both pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatic resections (DP), with intra-operative drain placement were screened. Early drain removal was defined as removal before or on the 3rd post-operative day (POD) while late drain removal was defined as after the 3rd POD. The primary outcome was CR-POPF, International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) Grade B and above. Secondary outcomes were all complications, severe complications, post-operative haemorrhage, intra-abdominal infections, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, length of stay, readmission, and mortality.
RESULTS
Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The studies had a total of 8574 patients, comprising 1946 in the early removal group and 6628 in the late removal group. Early drain removal was associated with a significantly lower risk of CR-POPF (OR: 0.24, p < 0.01). Significant reduction in risk of post-operative haemorrhage (OR: 0.55, p < 0.01), intra-abdominal infection (OR: 0.35, p < 0.01), re-admission (OR: 0.63, p < 0.01), re-operation (OR: 0.70, p = 0.03), presence of any complications (OR: 0.46, p < 0.01), and reduced length of stay (SMD: -0.75, p < 0.01) in the early removal group was also observed.
CONCLUSION
Early drain removal is associated with significant reductions in incidence of CR-POPF and other post-operative complications. Further prospective randomised trials in this area are recommended to validate these findings.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Device Removal; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Intraabdominal Infections
PubMed: 37587225
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03053-6 -
International Journal of Surgery... Mar 2024Partial pancreatectomy, commonly used for chronic pancreatitis, or pancreatic lesions, has diverse impacts on endocrine and metabolism system. The study aims to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Partial pancreatectomy, commonly used for chronic pancreatitis, or pancreatic lesions, has diverse impacts on endocrine and metabolism system. The study aims to determine the global prevalence of new-onset, worsening, and resolution of diabetes following partial pancreatectomy.
METHODS
The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to October, 2023. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Logit transformation was used. Sensitivity analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup analysis were employed to investigate determinants of the prevalence of new-onset diabetes.
RESULTS
A total of 82 studies involving 13 257 patients were included. The overall prevalence of new-onset diabetes after partial pancreatectomy was 17.1%. Univariate meta-regression indicated that study size was the cause of heterogeneity. Multivariable analysis suggested that income of country or area had the highest predictor importance (49.7%). For subgroup analysis, the prevalence of new-onset diabetes varied from 7.6% (France, 95% CI: 4.3-13.0) to 38.0% (UK, 95% CI: 28.2-48.8, P <0.01) across different countries. Patients with surgical indications for chronic pancreatitis exhibited a higher prevalence (30.7%, 95% CI: 21.8-41.3) than those with pancreatic lesions (16.4%, 95% CI: 14.3-18.7, P <0.01). The type of surgical procedure also influenced the prevalence, with distal pancreatectomy having the highest prevalence (23.7%, 95% CI: 22.2-25.3, P <0.01). Moreover, the prevalence of worsening and resolution of preoperative diabetes was 41.1 and 25.8%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Postoperative diabetes has a relatively high prevalence in patients undergoing partial pancreatectomy, which calls for attention and dedicated action from primary care physicians, specialists, and health policy makers alike.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Diabetes Mellitus; Pancreas; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Pancreatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 38126341
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000998 -
Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced... Nov 2020Endocrine insufficiency must be considered following distal pancreatectomy (DP), because diabetes mellitus can impose a long-term burden on patients. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Endocrine insufficiency must be considered following distal pancreatectomy (DP), because diabetes mellitus can impose a long-term burden on patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify the incidence and severity of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM) after DP for benign and malignant tumors, and other indications. Articles reporting NODM after DP from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were analyzed. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or MOGA scale. Inverse variance analysis calculated the overall NODM incidence, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and values were determined. Subgroup analyses considered pre-existing pancreatic diseases. The quantitative analysis involved 18 articles that described 2356 patients with pancreatic neoplasms or inflammatory lesions. The overall incidence of NODM after DP was 29% (95% CI 25-33). The NODM rates were 23% (95% CI 17-30) and 38% (95% CI 30-45) for patients with pancreatic neoplasms and chronic pancreatitis, respectively. Pre-existing chronic pancreatitis and being male were risks associated with NODM. NODM is fairly common after DP. Surgeons and patients should be aware of postoperative treatment-dependent endocrine dysfunction. Larger cohort studies are required to clarify the risk factors for NODM after DP.
Topics: Aged; Diabetes Complications; Diabetes Mellitus; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Postoperative Period; Prognosis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32559393
DOI: 10.1089/lap.2020.0090 -
ANZ Journal of Surgery Dec 2023To compare the clinical outcomes and prognosis of total pancreatectomy (TP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of clinical outcomes and prognosis between total pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
To compare the clinical outcomes and prognosis of total pancreatectomy (TP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and to explore the safety and indications of TP.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases from January 1943 to March 2023 for literatures comparing TP and PD in the treatment of PDAC. The primary outcome was postoperative overall survival (OS), and secondary outcomes included surgery time, blood loss, readmission, hospital stay, perioperative mortality, and overall morbidity. Fixed-effect or random-effect models were selected based on heterogeneity, and odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.
RESULTS
A total of six studies involving 8396 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in OS after surgery between the two groups (HR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.91-1.27; P = 0.38). The TP group had a longer surgery time (MD = 13.66, 95% CI: 4.57-22.75; P = 0.003) and more blood loss (MD = 133.17, 95% CI: 8.00-258.33; P = 0.04) than the PD group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of hospital stay (MD = 0.09, 95% CI: -2.04 to 2.22; P = 0.93), readmission rate (OR = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.00-1.92; P = 0.05), perioperative mortality (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.98-1.69; P = 0.07), and overall morbidity (OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.50-1.26; P = 0.33).
CONCLUSION
The surgical process of TP is relatively complex, but there is no difference in short-term clinical outcomes and OS compared to PD, making it a safe and reliable procedure. Indications and treatment outcomes for planned TP and salvage TP may differ, and more research is needed in the future for further classification and verification.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Prognosis
PubMed: 37614050
DOI: 10.1111/ans.18653 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are the two principal minimally invasive surgical approaches for patients with...
BACKGROUND
Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are the two principal minimally invasive surgical approaches for patients with pancreatic body and tail adenocarcinoma. The use of RDP and LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial, and which one can provide a better R0 rate is not clear.
METHODS
A comprehensive search for studies that compared robotic laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for PDAC published until July 31, 2021, was conducted. Data on perioperative outcomes and oncologic outcomes (R0-resection and lymph node dissection) were subjected to meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before July 2021.
RESULTS
Six retrospective studies comprising 572 patients (152 and 420 patients underwent RDP and LDP) were included. The present meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in operative time, tumor size, and lymph node dissection between RDP and LDP group. Nevertheless, compared with the LDP group, RDP results seem to demonstrate a possibility in higher R0 resection rate (p<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that RDP is a technically and oncologically safe and feasible approach for selected PDAC patients. Large randomized and controlled prospective studies are needed to confirm this data.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier [CRD42021269353].
PubMed: 34616686
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.752236 -
Journal of Hepato-biliary-pancreatic... Jan 2022Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) was initially performed for benign tumors, but recently its indications have steadily broadened to encompass other... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) was initially performed for benign tumors, but recently its indications have steadily broadened to encompass other conditions including pancreatic malignancies. Thorough anatomical knowledge is mandatory for precise surgery in the era of minimally invasive surgery. However, expert consensus regarding anatomical landmarks to facilitate the safe performance of MIDP is still lacking.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed using keywords to identify articles regarding the vascular anatomy and surgical approaches/techniques for MIDP.
RESULTS
All of the systematic reviews revealed that MIDP was not associated with an increase in postoperative complications. Moreover, most showed that MIDP resulted in less blood loss than open surgery. Regarding surgical approaches for MIDP, a standardized stepwise procedure improved surgical outcomes, including blood loss, operative time, and major complications. There are two approaches to the splenic vessels, superior and inferior; however, no study has ever directly compared them with respect to clinical outcomes. The morphology of the splenic artery affects the difficulty of approaching the artery's root. To select an appropriate dissecting layer when performing posterior resection, thorough knowledge of the anatomy of the fascia, left renal vein/artery, and left adrenal gland is needed.
CONCLUSIONS
In MIDP, a standardized approach and precise knowledge of anatomy facilitates safe surgery and has the advantage of a shorter learning curve. Anatomical features and landmarks are particularly important in cases of radical MIDP and splenic vessel preserving MIDP.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33527758
DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.902 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Jun 2023Spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) represents a widely adopted procedure in the presence of benign or low-grade malignant tumors. Splenic vessels... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) represents a widely adopted procedure in the presence of benign or low-grade malignant tumors. Splenic vessels preservation and resection (Kimura and Warshaw techniques respectively) represent the two main surgical modalities to avoid splenic resection. Each one is characterized by strengths and drawbacks. The aim of the present study is to systematically review the current high-quality evidence regarding these two techniques and analyze their short-term outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA, AMSTAR II and MOOSE guidelines. The primary endpoint was to assess the incidence of splenic infarction and splenic infarction leading to splenectomy. As secondary endpoints, specific intraoperative variables and postoperative complications were explored. Metaregression analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of general variables on specific outcomes.
RESULTS
Seventeen high-quality studies were included in quantitative analysis. A significantly lower risk of splenic infarction for patients undergoing Kimura SPDP (OR = 0.14; p < 0.0001). Similarly, splenic vessel preservation was associated with a reduced risk of gastric varices (OR = 0.1; 95% p < 0.0001). Regarding all secondary outcome variables, no differences between the two techniques were noticed. Metaregression analysis failed to identify independent predictors of splenic infarction, blood loss, and operative time among general variables.
CONCLUSIONS
Although Kimura and Warshaw SPDP have been demonstrated comparable for most of postoperative outcomes, the former resulted superior compared to the latter in reducing the risk of splenic infarction and gastric varices. For benign pancreatic tumors and low-grade malignancies Kimura SPDP may be preferred.
Topics: Humans; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Splenic Artery; Splenic Infarction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36941150
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.02.009