-
World Journal of Surgery Aug 2022There is no consensus on the pancreatic transection during distal pancreatectomy (DP) to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). This meta-analysis aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is no consensus on the pancreatic transection during distal pancreatectomy (DP) to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of a reinforced stapler on the postoperative outcomes of DP.
METHODS
We systematically searched electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists in The PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library's Controlled Trials Registry and Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, and Scopus. Review Manager Software was used for pooled estimates.
RESULTS
Seven eligible studies published between 2007 and 2021 were included with 553 patients (267 patients in the reinforced stapler group and 286 patients in the standard stapler group). The reinforced stapler reduced the POPF grade B and C (OR = 0.33; 95% CI [0.19, 0.57], p < 0.01). There was no difference between the reinforced stapler group and standard stapler group in terms of mortality rate (OR = 0.39; 95% CI [0.04, 3.57], p = 0.40), postoperative haemorrhage (OR = 0.53; 95% CI [0.20, 1.43], p = 0.21), and reoperation rate (OR = 0.91; 95% CI [0.40, 2.06], p = 0.82).
CONCLUSIONS
Reinforced stapling in DP is safe and seems to reduce POPF grade B/C with similar mortality rates, postoperative bleeding, and reoperation rate. The protocol of this systematic review with meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021286849).
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35525852
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-022-06572-3 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2024Advancements in surgical techniques have improved outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. To date there have been no meta-analyses comparing robotic and...
BACKGROUND
Advancements in surgical techniques have improved outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. To date there have been no meta-analyses comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches for distal pancreatectomies (DP) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to explore the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted for studies reporting laparoscopic, robotic or open surgery for DP. Frequentist network meta-analysis of oncological outcomes (overall survival, resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes, administration of adjuvant therapy) were performed.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies totalling 9,301 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. 1,946, 605 and 6,750 patients underwent LDP, RDP and ODP respectively. LDP (HR: 0.761, 95% CI: 0.642-0.901, = 0.002) and RDP (HR: 0.757, 95% CI: 0.617-0.928, = 0.008) were associated with overall survival (OS) benefit when compared to ODP. LDP (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.793-1.27, = 0.968) was not associated with OS benefit when compared to RDP. There were no significant differences between LDP, RDP and ODP for resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes and administration of adjuvant therapy.
CONCLUSION
This study highlights the longer OS in both LDP and RDP when compared to ODP for patients with PDAC.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42022336417).
PubMed: 38933652
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1369169 -
ANZ Journal of Surgery Nov 2020The use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for pancreatic cancer is increasing, although its impact on post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is variably reported. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for pancreatic cancer is increasing, although its impact on post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is variably reported. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of NAT on POPF.
METHODS
A systematic literature search until October 2019 identified studies reporting POPF following NAT (radiotherapy, chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) versus upfront resection. The primary outcome was overall POPF. Secondary outcomes included grade B/C POPF, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-operative pancreatic haemorrhage (PPH) and overall and major complications.
RESULTS
The search identified 24 studies: pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), 19 studies (n = 19 416) and distal pancreatectomy (DP), five studies (n = 477). Local staging was reported in 17 studies, with borderline resectable and locally advanced disease comprising 6% (0-100%) and 1% (0-33%) of the population, respectively. For PD, any NAT was significantly associated with lower rates of overall POPF (OR: 0.57, P < 0.001) and grade B/C POPF (OR: 0.55, P < 0.001). In DP, NAT was not associated with significantly lower rates of overall or grade B/C POPF.
CONCLUSION
NAT is associated with significantly lower rates of POPF after PD but not after DP. Further studies are required to determine whether NAT should be added to POPF risk calculators.
Topics: Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 32418344
DOI: 10.1111/ans.15885 -
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy Nov 2019: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatic cancer has become very popular in modern pancreatic surgery. Evidence of the benefits of an MI approach are increasing... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatic cancer has become very popular in modern pancreatic surgery. Evidence of the benefits of an MI approach are increasing thanks to prospective studies and randomized controlled studies.: Agreement is lacking regarding the oncological feasibility of MIS for pancreatic cancer. Therefore, we performed a systematic review focusing on MIS for cancer of the head, body or tail of the pancreas. A total of 5237 studies were identified. After paper screening, 44 studies (22 on MI-pancreaticoduodenectomy and 22 on MI-distal pancreatectomy) met the eligibility criteria for the present review. The mean morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were 31% and 4.9%, while overall complication and mortality rates were 32,5% and 1%. Median overall survival after MIPD and MIDP was 21.9 and 29.8 months, respectively. Both surgical and oncological outcomes were comparable to the open approach.: MIS offers advantages to the surgeon thanks to the high definition of the surgical field and the freedom of fine movement of the robot but should be considered only in selected patients and in high volume centers. Further studies are needed to prove the intraoperative and postoperative advantages of MIS compared to open surgery.
Topics: Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Survival Rate
PubMed: 31661984
DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2019.1685878 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jul 2022Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most critical complications after pancreatic surgery. The relationship between sarcopenia and outcomes following... (Review)
Review
Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most critical complications after pancreatic surgery. The relationship between sarcopenia and outcomes following this type of surgery is debated. The aim of this review was to assess the impact of sarcopenia on the risk of POPF. A literature search was performed using the PubMed database and the reference lists of relevant articles to identify papers about the impact of sarcopenia on POPF in pancreatic surgery. Twenty-one studies published between 2016 and 2021 with a total of 4068 patients were included. Some studies observed a significant difference in the incidence of POPF between the sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. Interestingly, there was a trend of a lower POPF rate in sarcopenic patients than in non-sarcopenic patients. Only one study included patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy specifically. The role of sarcopenia in surgical outcomes is still unclear. A combination of objective CT measurements could be used to predict POPF. It could be assessed by routine preoperative staging CT and could improve preoperative risk stratification in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery.
PubMed: 35887908
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11144144 -
Cancers Jun 2021The present systematic review aimed to summarise the available evidence on indications and oncological outcomes after MA IRE for stage III pancreatic cancer (PC). A... (Review)
Review
The present systematic review aimed to summarise the available evidence on indications and oncological outcomes after MA IRE for stage III pancreatic cancer (PC). A literature search was performed in the Pubmed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS databases using the PRISMA framework to identify all MA IRE studies. Nine studies with 235 locally advanced (LA) (82%, 192/235) or Borderline resectable (BR) PC (18%, 43/235) patients undergoing MA IRE pancreatic resection were included. Patients were mostly male (56%) with a weighted-mean age of 61 years (95% CI: 58-64). Pancreatoduodenectomy was performed in 51% (120/235) and distal pancreatectomy in 49% (115/235). R0 resection rate was 73% (77/105). Clavien Dindo grade 3-5 postoperative complications occurred in 19% (36/187). Follow-up intervals ranged from 3 to 29 months. Local and systematic recurrences were noted in 8 and 43 patients, respectively. The weighted-mean progression free survival was 11 months (95% CI: 7-15). The weighted-mean overall survival was 22 months (95% CI 20-23 months) and 8 months (95% CI 1-32 months) for MA IRE and IRE alone, respectively. Early non-randomised data suggest MA IRE during pancreatic surgery for stage III pancreatic cancer may result in increased R0 resection rates and improved OS with acceptable postoperative morbidity. Further, larger studies are warranted to corroborate this evidence.
PubMed: 34199031
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13133212 -
International Journal of Surgery... May 2022Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging procedure with peri-operative complications. Robotic surgery offers improved dexterity, visibility, and accessibility.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging procedure with peri-operative complications. Robotic surgery offers improved dexterity, visibility, and accessibility. Recently, many centres have reported improved clinical outcomes for robotic PD. We reviewed the safety and efficacy of robotic PD in comparison to open PD using 'Therapeutic Index' (TI).
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted in various databases. Articles published between January 2010 and March 2021 reporting totally-robotic and open PD were included, according to the PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 guidelines. The Cochrane tool was used for risk of bias assessment. We compared 30-day mortality rates (MR), lymphadenectomy rates (LR), R0 resection rates (RRR) and therapeutic index (TI). STATA 16.1 was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
The four studies that met inclusion criteria included 5090 PDs, out of which 617 were totally-robotic (RPD) and 4473 were open (OPD). Variance ratio tests demonstrated a)Higher TI for RPD versus OPD (1807.42 vs 1723.37, p = 0.86), b)Significantly smaller MR (2.50 vs 19.00, p = 0.0004), c)Significantly lower RRR (130.50 vs 939.25, p = 0.00) and d)No significant difference in LR between RPD and OPD (35.63 vs 38.25, p = 0.81). Meta-regression analysis showed a significantly higher TI coefficient of RPD than OPD (0.66 vs -0.40, p = 0.08, α = 0.1).
CONCLUSION
Our study suggests that robotic PD is safe and not inferior to open PD and our analysis RPD demonstrated a higher therapeutic index than OPD. Randomised controlled trials are required to establish the efficacy of robotic PD. Also, standardisation of reporting mortality, survival and oncological outcomes is needed for the effective calculation of TI.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Therapeutic Index
PubMed: 35487420
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106633 -
Updates in Surgery Jan 2023Robotic surgery has become a promising surgical method in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, tremor filtration, motion... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Robotic surgery has become a promising surgical method in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, tremor filtration, motion scaling, and better ergonomics. Numerous studies have explored the benefits of RDP over LDP in terms of perioperative safety and feasibility, but no consensus has been achieved yet. This article aimed to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of RDP and LDP for perioperative outcomes. By June 2022, all studies comparing RDP to LDP in the PubMed, the Embase, and the Cochrane Library database were systematically reviewed. According to the heterogeneity, fix or random-effects models were used for the meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes. Odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore potential sources of high heterogeneity and a trim and fill analysis was used to evaluate the impact of publication bias on the pooled results. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. RDP provides greater benefit than LDP for higher spleen preservation (OR 3.52 95% CI 2.62-4.73, p < 0.0001) and Kimura method (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.42-2.62, p < 0.0001) in benign and low-grade malignant tumors. RDP is associated with lower conversion to laparotomy (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.52, p < 0.00001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.21, p = 0.002), but it is more costly. In terms of postoperative complications, there was no difference between RDP and LDP except for 30-day mortality (RDP versus LDP, 0.1% versus 1.0%, p = 0.03). With the exception of its high cost, RDP appears to outperform LDP on perioperative outcomes and is technologically feasible and safe. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are advised for further confirmation as the quality of the evidence now is not high.
Topics: Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Pancreatectomy; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 36378464
DOI: 10.1007/s13304-022-01413-3 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022The aim of this study was to compare the safety and overall effect of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) after the learning...
AIM
The aim of this study was to compare the safety and overall effect of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) after the learning curve, especially in perioperative outcome and short-term oncological outcome.
METHODS
A literature search was performed by two authors independently using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify any studies comparing the results of RDP versus LDP published until 5 January 2022. Only the studies where RDP was performed in more than 35 cases were included in this study. We performed a meta-analysis of operative time, blood loss, reoperation, readmission, hospital stay, overall complications, major complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, conversion to open surgery, spleen preservation, tumor size, R0 resection, and lymph node dissection.
RESULTS
Our search identified 15 eligible studies, totaling 4,062 patients (1,413 RDP). It seems that the RDP group had a higher rate of smaller tumor size than the LDP group (MD: -0.15; 95% CI: -0.20 to -0.09; < 0.00001). Furthermore, compared with LPD, RDP was associated with a higher spleen preservation rate (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.36-3.54; = 0.001) and lower rate of conversion to open surgery (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.33-0.55; < 0.00001). Our study revealed that there were no significant differences in operative time, overall complications, major complications, blood loss, blood transfusion, reoperation, readmission, POPF, and lymph node dissection between RDP and LDP.
CONCLUSIONS
RDP is safe and feasible for distal pancreatectomy compared with LDP, and it can reduce the rate of conversion to open surgery and increase the rate of spleen preservation, which needs to be further confirmed by quality comparative studies with large samples.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.
PubMed: 36106111
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.954227 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery May 2021The reported conversion rates for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) range widely from 2 to 38%. The identification of risk factors for conversion may help...
PURPOSE
The reported conversion rates for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) range widely from 2 to 38%. The identification of risk factors for conversion may help surgeons during preoperative planning and patient counseling. Moreover, the impact of conversion on outcomes of MIDP is unknown.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR). The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched for studies concerning conversion to open surgery in MIDP.
RESULTS
Of the 828 studies screened, eight met the eligibility criteria, resulting in a combined dataset including 2592 patients after MIDP. The overall conversion rate was 17.1% (range 13.0-32.7%) with heterogeneity between studies associated with the definition of conversion adopted. Only one study divided conversion into elective and emergency conversion. The main indications for conversion were vascular involvement (23.7%), concern for oncological radicality (21.9%), and bleeding (18.9%). The reported risk factors for conversion included a malignancy as an indication for surgery, the proximity of the tumor to vascular structures in preoperative imaging, higher BMI or visceral fat, and multi-organ resection or extended resection. Contrasting results were seen in terms of blood loss and length of stay in comparing converted MIDP and completed MIDP patients.
CONCLUSION
The identified risk factors for conversion from this study can be used for patient selection and counseling. Surgeon experience should be considered when contemplating MIDP for a complex patient. Future studies should divide conversion into elective and emergency conversion.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33301071
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-020-02043-2