-
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology May 2020Except for pancreas divisum (PD), the prevalence of anatomic variants of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) seems to be insufficiently investigated. To date, their role in...
Except for pancreas divisum (PD), the prevalence of anatomic variants of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) seems to be insufficiently investigated. To date, their role in the occurrence of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) and morphological changes suggestive of chronic pancreatitis (CP) has remained unclear. A systematic review was performed, searching MEDLINE and Web of Science, limited to articles published between 1960 and 1 June 2019. Our review included a total number of 3234 subjects. The most common variant of MPD was type 3, followed by type 1, indicating MPD drainage pattern into major papilla (MP) as the most frequent. A sub-variant of type 3, known as 'reverse pancreas divisum' had a prevalence of 2.2%. Type 4 variant- PD, was found in 6.4% of all cases. The most common sub-variant of PD was complete PD, followed by incomplete PD and variant with MPD as only pancreatic duct. Type 5 variant (including ansa pancreatica) was present in 2.9% of subjects. Apart from one study with a significantly higher frequency of morphological changes suggestive of CP in patients with ansa pancreatica, the studies stated no significant association between pancreatic disease and MPD variants. Furthermore, only one study examined the influence of MPD variants on exocrine pancreatic function. Although equivocal, this association is most likely found to be insignificant. To elucidate linkage between MPD variants and the occurrence of chronic pancreatitis and impairment of pancreatic exocrine function, further clinical investigations are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Pancreas; Pancreas, Exocrine; Pancreatic Ducts; Pancreatitis, Chronic
PubMed: 32393143
DOI: 10.1080/00365521.2020.1760345 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is the third update of a previously published Cochrane Review to address the uncertain benifits of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.
SEARCH METHODS
In this updated review, we re-searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) on 08 February 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included RCTs that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for important outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified a total of nine RCTs with 1892 participants. Drain use versus no drain use We included four RCTs with 1110 participants, randomised to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. Low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may reduce 90-day mortality (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants). Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may result in little to no difference in 30-day mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants), wound infection rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants), length of hospital stay (MD -0.14 days, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.51; three studies, 876 participants), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants), and quality of life (105 points versus 104 points; measured with the pancreas-specific quality of life questionnaire (scale 0 to 144, higher values indicating a better quality of life); one study, 399 participants). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that drain use probably resulted in little to no difference in morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of drain use on intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; three studies, 660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Active versus passive drain We included two RCTs involving 383 participants, randomised to the active drain group (N = 194) and the passive drain group (N = 189) after pancreatic surgery. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on 30-day mortality (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.06; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.66; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.90; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.77; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.04; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.83; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no drain-related complication in either group. Early versus late drain removal We included three RCTs involving 399 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, randomised to the early drain removal group (N = 200) and the late drain removal group (N = 199) after pancreatic surgery. Compared to late drain removal, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of early drain removal on 30-day mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.45; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.85; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), hospital costs (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.14; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.10; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.79; one study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -2.20 days, 95% CI -3.52 to -0.87; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain. None of the studies reported on drain-related complications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with no drain use, it is unclear whether routine drain use has any effect on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that routine drain use may reduce mortality at 90 days. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications. Compared with late drain removal, early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate, morbidity, and length of hospital stay for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but the evidence is very uncertain.
Topics: Abdomen; Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula
PubMed: 34921395
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010583.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 -
BioMed Research International 2023Pancreatic trauma is an uncommon injury that occurs usually in a young population and is frequently overlooked and not readily appreciated on initial examination.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic trauma is an uncommon injury that occurs usually in a young population and is frequently overlooked and not readily appreciated on initial examination. Nowadays, the diagnosis and management of pancreatic trauma are still controversial, and there is no gold standard for the treatment. The aim of this study is to describe our experience in the management of blunt pancreatic trauma with a laparoscopic approach and review the literature on laparoscopic management of pancreatic trauma.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed, and 40 cases were reported and analysed; 10 cases were excluded because the complete data were not retrievable. We also reported our experience with the case of an 18-year-old male diagnosed with a deep laceration of the pancreas between body and tail, involving the main pancreatic duct, and with a concomitant hematoma. The patient underwent exploratory laparoscopy with abdominal toilet, necrosectomy, and suture of main pancreatic duct; the total blood loss was less than 200 ml, and the total operative time was 180 minutes. The patient recovered uneventfully and was discharged on the 6th postoperative day.
RESULTS
30 patients with pancreatic trauma, 10 adults and 20 pediatrics (mean age 28.2 years and 10.5 years), underwent a total laparoscopic approach: 2 distal pancreatic-splenectomy, 22 spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, and 6 laparoscopic drainage. The mean operative time for the adult and pediatric populations was 160.6 and 214.5 minutes, the mean estimated blood loss was 400 ml and 75 ml, and the mean hospital stay was 14.9 and 9 days, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic management for pancreatic trauma can be considered feasible and safe when performed by an experienced laparoscopic pancreatic team, and in such a setting, it can be considered a viable alternative to open surgery, offering the well-known benefits of minimally invasive surgery.
Topics: Male; Humans; Adult; Child; Adolescent; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Spleen; Laparoscopy; Abdominal Injuries; Wounds, Nonpenetrating; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37810623
DOI: 10.1155/2023/9296570 -
Minerva Chirurgica Aug 2019Treatment of chronic calcifying pancreatitis is challenging and requires an interdisciplinary approach including endoscopist, surgeon and radiologist. With advances in...
INTRODUCTION
Treatment of chronic calcifying pancreatitis is challenging and requires an interdisciplinary approach including endoscopist, surgeon and radiologist. With advances in endoscopic technology therapeutic interventions in the pancreatic duct became available. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is still recommended to be first line treatment, hence peroral pancreatoscopy- (POP) -guided intracorporal lithotripsy is a promising supplement in endoscopic therapy especially if ESWL is unsuccessful or not available.
EVIDENCE AQUISITION
Evidence from published trials, abstracts and case reports on direct pancreatoscopic treatment of main pancreatic duct (MPD) stones was reviewed with focus on efficiency and safety of available technologies, endoscopes and lithotripsy devices. A systematic Medline and Cochrane Database search for relevant studies was performed.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Seventeen relevant publications meeting the inclusion criteria have been identified (two prospective series, seven retrospective trials, six case reports, two abstracts, for a total of 225 patients). Successful ductal clearance for POP-guided treatment was reported between 37.5% and 100%. Clinical success was reported between 74% and 100%. Adverse event (AE) rate for POP-guided therapy is reported with 0-30%. There is no reported mortality following POP treatment. Three ongoing trials found to be registered.
CONCLUSIONS
POP-guided lithotripsy seems to be a promising alternative in a very selected patient cohort. Good powered randomized controlled trials are needed to prove efficiency and safety of the new technique also for large numbers of patients before it can be recommended as general practice. The focus of future studies should not only be on technical success, but also clinical success and patient-reported outcomes (quality of life).
Topics: Calculi; Endoscopy, Digestive System; Humans; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Ducts
PubMed: 30371042
DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4733.18.07932-4 -
Pancreatology : Official Journal of the... Oct 2019Necrotizing pancreatitis may lead to loss of integrity of the pancreatic duct, resulting in leakage of pancreatic fluid. Pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Necrotizing pancreatitis may lead to loss of integrity of the pancreatic duct, resulting in leakage of pancreatic fluid. Pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection is associated with a prolonged disease course and particular complications. Since a standard treatment for this condition is currently lacking, we performed a systematic review of the literature to compare outcomes of various treatment strategies.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines in the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Included were articles considering the treatment of patients with disrupted or disconnected pancreatic duct resulting from acute necrotizing pancreatitis.
RESULTS
Overall, 21 observational cohort studies were included comprising a total of 583 relevant patients. The most frequently used treatment strategies included endoscopic transpapillary drainage, endoscopic transluminal drainage, surgical drainage or resection, or combined procedures. Pooled analysis showed success rates of 81% (95%-CI: 60-92%) for transpapillary and 92% (95%-CI: 77-98%) for transluminal drainage, 80% (95%-CI: 67-89%) for distal pancreatectomy and 84% (95%-CI: 73-91%) for cyst-jejunostomy. Success rates did not differ between surgical procedures (cyst-jejunostomy and distal pancreatectomy (risk ratio = 1.06, p = .26)) but distal pancreatectomy was associated with a higher incidence of endocrine pancreatic insufficiency (risk ratio = 3.06, p = .01). The success rate of conservative treatment is unknown.
DISCUSSION
Different treatment strategies for pancreatic duct disruption and duct disconnection after necrotizing pancreatitis show high success rates but various sources of bias in the available studies are likely. High-quality prospective, studies, including unselected patients, are needed to establish the most effective treatment in specific subgroups of patients, including timing of treatment and long-term follow-up.
Topics: Drainage; Humans; Pancreatic Ducts; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing
PubMed: 31473083
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2019.08.006 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Jun 2023Low-risk branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMNs) lacking worrisome features (WF) and high-risk stigmata (HRS) warrant surveillance. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Low-risk branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMNs) lacking worrisome features (WF) and high-risk stigmata (HRS) warrant surveillance. However, their optimal duration, especially among cysts with initial 5 years of size stability, warrants further investigation. We systematically reviewed the surveillance of low-risk BD-IPMNs and investigated the incidence of WF/HRS and advanced neoplasia, high-grade dysplasia, and pancreatic cancer during the initial (<5 years) and extended surveillance period (>5-years).
METHODS
A systematic search (CRD42020117120) identified studies investigating long-term IPMN surveillance outcomes of low-risk IPMN among the Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, Ovid Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, from inception until July 9, 2021. The outcomes included the incidence of WF/HRS and advanced neoplasia, disease-specific mortality, and surveillance-related harm (expressed as percentage per patient-years). The meta-analysis relied on time-to-event plots and used a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Forty-one eligible studies underwent systematic review, and 18 studies were meta-analyzed. The pooled incidence of WF/HRS among low-risk BD-IPMNs during initial and extended surveillance was 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0%-3.7%) and 2.9% (95% CI, 1.0%-5.7%) patient-years, respectively, whereas the incidence of advanced neoplasia was 0.6% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.00%) and 1.0% (95% CI, 0.6%-1.5%) patient-years, respectively. The pooled incidence of disease-specific mortality during initial and extended surveillance was 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1%-0.6%) and 0.6% (95% CI, 0.0%-1.6%) patient-years, respectively. Among BD-IPMNs with initial size stability, extended surveillance had a WF/HRS and advanced neoplasia incidence of 1.9% (95% CI, 1.2%-2.8%) and 0.2% (95% CI, 0.1%-0.5%) patient-years, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
A lower incidence of advanced neoplasia during extended surveillance among low-risk, stable-sized BD-IPMNs was a key finding of this study. However, the survival benefit of surveillance among this population warrants further exploration through high-quality studies before recommending surveillance cessation with certainty.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Pancreatic Intraductal Neoplasms; Pancreatic Ducts; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreatic Cyst; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35568304
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.04.025 -
Surgery Jul 2022The complexity of pancreaticoduodenectomy and fear of morbidity, particularly postoperative pancreatic fistula, can be a barrier to surgical trainees gaining operative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The complexity of pancreaticoduodenectomy and fear of morbidity, particularly postoperative pancreatic fistula, can be a barrier to surgical trainees gaining operative experience. This meta-analysis sought to compare the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or established surgeons.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula rates after pancreatoenteric anastomosis between trainee-led versus consultant/attending surgeons pooled using meta-analysis. Variation in rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was further explored using risk-adjusted outcomes using published risk scores and cumulative sum control chart analysis in a retrospective cohort.
RESULTS
Across 14 cohorts included in the meta-analysis, trainees tended toward a lower but nonsignificant rate of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.77, P = .45) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.69, P = .37). However, there was evidence of case selection, with trainees being less likely to operate on patients with a pancreatic duct width <3 mm (odds ratio: 0.45, P = .05). Similarly, analysis of a retrospective cohort (N = 756 cases) found patients operated by trainees to have significantly lower predicted all postoperative pancreatic fistula (median: 20 vs 26%, P < .001) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (7 vs 9%, P = .020) rates than consultant/attending surgeons, based on preoperative risk scores. After adjusting for this on multivariable analysis, the risks of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 1.18, P = .604) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.85, P = .693) remained similar after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or consultant/attending surgeons.
CONCLUSION
Pancreatoenteric anastomosis, when performed by trainees, is associated with acceptable outcomes. There is evidence of case selection among patients undergoing surgery by trainees; hence, risk adjustment provides a critical tool for the objective evaluation of performance.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Humans; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Risk Adjustment; Surgeons
PubMed: 35221107
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.12.033 -
Journal of Hepato-biliary-pancreatic... Feb 2022Peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) result from acute or chronic pancreatic inflammation that suffers a rupture of its ducts. Currently, there exists three options... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Head-to-head comparison between endoscopic ultrasound guided lumen apposing metal stent and plastic stents for the treatment of pancreatic fluid collections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) result from acute or chronic pancreatic inflammation that suffers a rupture of its ducts. Currently, there exists three options for drainage or debridement of pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis (WON). The traditional procedure is drainage by placing double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS); lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) has a biflanged design with a wide lumen that avoids occlusion with necrotic tissue, which is more common with DPPS and reduces the possibility of migration. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses head-to-head, including only studies that compare the two main techniques to drainage of PFCs: LAMS vs DPPS.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review in different databases, such as PubMed, OVID, Medline, and Cochrane Databases. This meta-analysis considers studies published from 2014 to 2020, including only studies that compare the two main techniques to drainage of PFCs: LAMS vs DPPS.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analyses. Only one of all studies was a randomized controlled trial. These studies comprise 1584 patients; 68.2% were male, and 31.8% were female. Six hundred sixty-three patients (41.9%) were treated with LAMS, and 921 (58.1%) were treated with DPPS. Six studies included only WON in their analysis, two included only pancreatic pseudocysts, and five studies included both pancreatic pseudocysts and WON. The technical success was similar in patients treated with LAMS and DPPS (97.6% vs 97.5%, respectively, P = .986, RR = 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.08]). The clinical success was similar in both groups (LAMS: 90.1% vs DPPS: 84.2%, P = .139, RR = 1.063 [95% CI 0.98-1.15]). Patients treated with LAMS had a lower complication rate than the DPPS groups, with a significant statistical difference (LAMS: 16.0% vs DPPS: 20.2%, P = .009, RR = 0.746 [95% CI 0.60-0.93]). Bleeding was the most common complication in the LAMS group (33 patients, [5.0%]), whereas infection was the most common complication in the DPPS group (56 patients, [6.1%]). The LAMS migration rate was lower than in the DPPS (0.9% vs 2.2%, respectively, P = .05). The mortality rate was similar in both groups, 0.6% in the LAMS group (four patients) and 0.4% in the DPPS group (four patients; P = .640).
CONCLUSION
The PFCs drainage is an indication when persistent symptoms or PFCs-related complications exist. EUS guided drainage with LAMS has similar technical and clinical success to DPPS drainage for the management of PFCs. The technical and clinical success rates are high in both groups. However, LAMS drainage has a lower adverse events rate than DPPS drainage. More randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the real advantage of LAMS drainage over DPPS drainage.
Topics: Drainage; Endosonography; Female; Humans; Male; Metals; Pancreatic Pseudocyst; Plastics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stents; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 34107170
DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.1008 -
Digestive and Liver Disease : Official... Jul 2022The accurate differential diagnosis between autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is clinically important. We aimed to determine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The accurate differential diagnosis between autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is clinically important. We aimed to determine significant MRI features for differentiating AIP from PDAC, including assessment of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI).
METHODS
We performed a systematic search using three databases. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was calculated using a bivariate random effects model to determine significant MRI features for differentiating AIP from PDAC. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated. The qualitative systematic review for DWI assessment was performed.
RESULTS
Of nine studies (775 patients), multiple main pancreatic duct (MPD) strictures, absence of upstream marked MPD dilatation, peripancreatic rim, and duct penetration sign were significant MRI features for differentiating AIP from PDAC. Absence of MPD dilatation had the highest pooled sensitivity (87%, 95% CI=68-96%), whereas peripancreatic rim had the highest pooled specificity (100%, 95% CI=88-100%). Of 12 studies evaluating DWI, seven reported statistically significant differences in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values between AIP and PDAC; however, four reported lower ADC values in AIP than in PDAC, but three reported the opposite result.
CONCLUSION
The four significant MRI features can be useful to differentiate AIP from PDAC, but DWI assessment might be limited.
Topics: Autoimmune Diseases; Autoimmune Pancreatitis; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Diagnosis, Differential; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Pancreatic Ducts; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreatitis
PubMed: 34903501
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2021.11.013