-
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 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Jul 2022Morbidity and mortality from post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH) remains high. The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) published guidelines to...
BACKGROUND
Morbidity and mortality from post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH) remains high. The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) published guidelines to standardise definitions of PPH severity, management and reporting. This study aimed to i) identify the number of studies reporting PPH using ISGPS guidelines (Grade A, B or C) and ii) describe treatment modality success by grade.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed, identifying studies reporting PPH by ISGPS Grade and their subsequent management.
RESULTS
Of 62 studies reporting on PPH management, 17 (27.4%) stratified by ISGPS guidelines and included 608 incidences of PPH: 48 Grade A, 274 Grade B (62 early, 166 late, 46 unspecified) and 286 Grade C. 96% of Grade A PPH were treated conservatively. Of 62 early Grade B, 54.8% were managed conservatively and 37.1% surgically. Late Grade B were managed non-operatively in 25.3% (42/166), with successful endoscopy in 90.9% (10/11) and angiography in 90.3% (28/31). In Grade C, endoscopic treatment was successful in 64.4% (29/45) and angiography in 90.8% (108/119). Surgical intervention was required in 43.5% early Grade B, 7.8% late Grade B and 33.2% Grade C.
CONCLUSION
PPH grading is underreported and despite guidelines, inconsistencies remain when using definitions and reporting of outcomes.
Topics: Angiography; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35101359
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.12.002 -
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery 2022In the era of minimally invasive procedures and as a way to decrease the incidence of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF), the use of staplers for distal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
In the era of minimally invasive procedures and as a way to decrease the incidence of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF), the use of staplers for distal pancreatectomy (DP) has increased dramatically. Our aim was to investigate whether reinforced staplers decrease the incidence of clinically relevant PF after DP compared with staplers without reinforcement.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies from inception to 1 November 2021, and a systematic review and a meta-analysis were done to detect the outcomes after using reinforced staplers versus standard stapler for DP.
RESULTS
Seven studies with a total of 681 patients were included. The overall incidence of POPF and the incidence of Grade A POPF after DP are similar for the two groups (overall POPF, risk ratio [RR] = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71-1.01, P = 0.06; I = 38% and Grade A POPF, RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.78-1.69, P = 0.47; I = 49%). However, the incidence of clinically significant POPF (Grades B and C) is significantly lower in DP with reinforced staplers than DP with bare staplers (Grades B and C, RR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.29-0.71, P = 0.0005; I = 17%). Nevertheless, the time of the operation, the blood loss during surgical procedure, the hospital stay after the surgery and the thickness of the pancreas are similar for both techniques.
CONCLUSION
Although staple line reinforcement after DP failed to prevent biochemical PF, it significantly reduced the rate of clinically relevant POPF in comparison to standard stapling.
PubMed: 35708377
DOI: 10.4103/jmas.jmas_47_22 -
Annals of Surgery Open : Perspectives... Mar 2022To depict and analyze learning curves for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To depict and analyze learning curves for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).
BACKGROUND
Formal training is recommended for safe introduction of pancreatic surgery but definitions of learning curves vary and have not been standardized.
METHODS
A systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in pancreatic surgery. Primary outcome was the number needed to reach the learning curve as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, methods of analysis (statistical/arbitrary), and classification of learning phases.
RESULTS
Out of 1115 articles, 66 studies with 14,206 patients were included. Thirty-five studies (53%) based the learning curve analysis on statistical calculations. Most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n = 51), blood loss (n = 17), and complications (n = 10). The number of procedures to surpass a first phase of learning curve was 30 (20-50) for open PD, 39 (11-60) for laparoscopic PD, 25 (8-100) for robotic PD ( = 0.521), 16 (3-17) for laparoscopic DP, and 15 (5-37) for robotic DP ( = 0.914). In a three-phase model, intraoperative parameters improved earlier (first to second phase: operating time -15%, blood loss -29%) whereas postoperative parameters improved later (second to third phase: complications -46%, postoperative pancreatic fistula -48%). Studies with higher sample sizes showed higher numbers of procedures needed to overcome the learning curve (rho = 0.64, < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
This study summarizes learning curves for open-, laparoscopic-, and robotic pancreatic surgery with different definitions, analysis methods, and confounding factors. A standardized reporting of learning curves and definition of phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is desirable and proposed.
PubMed: 37600094
DOI: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000111 -
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 -
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 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Jun 2021When oncologically feasible, avoiding unnecessary splenectomies prevents patients who are undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP) from facing significant thromboembolic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
When oncologically feasible, avoiding unnecessary splenectomies prevents patients who are undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP) from facing significant thromboembolic and infective risks.
METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web Of Science identified 11 studies reporting outcomes of 323 patients undergoing intended spleen-preserving minimally invasive robotic DP (SP-RADP) and 362 laparoscopic DP (SP-LADP) in order to compare the spleen preservation rates of the two techniques. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
SP-RADP showed superior results over the laparoscopic approach, with an inferior spleen preservation failure risk difference (RD) of 0.24 (95% CI 0.15, 0.33), reduced open conversion rate (RD of -0.05 (95% CI -0.09, -0.01)), reduced blood loss (mean difference of -138 mL (95% CI -205, -71)), and mean difference in hospital length of stay of -1.5 days (95% CI -2.8, -0.2), with similar operative time, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (ISGPS grade B/C), and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 postoperative complications.
CONCLUSION
Both SP-RADP and SP-LADP proved to be safe and effective procedures, with minimal perioperative mortality and low postoperative morbidity. The robotic approach proved to be superior to the laparoscopic approach in terms of spleen preservation rate, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital length of stay.
PubMed: 34199314
DOI: 10.3390/jpm11060552 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Pancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialised nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialised nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant lesions, partial pancreaticoduodenectomy represents the standard treatment for resectable tumours. The gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy can be reestablished via either an antecolic or retrocolic route. The debate about the more favourable technique for bowel reconstruction is ongoing.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of antecolic and retrocolic gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.
SEARCH METHODS
In this updated version, we conducted a systematic literature search up to 6 July 2021 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 6, MEDLINE (1946 to 6 July 2021), and Embase (1974 to 6 July 2021). We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched reference lists of identified trials to identify further relevant trials, and searched the trial registries clinicaltrials.govand World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all RCTs comparing antecolic with retrocolic reconstruction of bowel continuity after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy for any given indication to be eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the identified references and extracted data from the included trials. The same two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials, according to standard Cochrane methodology. We used a random-effects model to pool the results of the individual trials in a meta-analysis. We used odds ratios (OR) to compare binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Of a total of 287 citations identified by the systematic literature search, we included eight randomised controlled trials (reported in 11 publications), with a total of 818 participants. There was high risk of bias in all of the trials in regard to blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors and unclear risk for selective reporting in six of the trials. There was little or no difference in the frequency of delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.09; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence) with relevant heterogeneity between trials (I=40%). There was little or no difference in postoperative mortality (risk difference (RD) -0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; eight trials, 818 participants, high-certainty evidence); postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.40; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence); postoperative haemorrhage (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.59; six trials, 742 participants, low-certainty evidence); intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.74; seven trials, 788 participants, low-certainty evidence); bile leakage (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.91; seven trials, 606 participants, low-certainty evidence); reoperation rate (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.36; five trials, 682 participants, low-certainty evidence); and length of hospital stay (MD -0.21; 95% CI -1.41 to 0.99; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence). Only one trial reported quality of life, on a subgroup of 73 participants, also without a relevant difference between the two groups at any time point. The overall certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, due to some degree of heterogeneity, inconsistency and risk of bias in the included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that antecolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy results in little to no difference in morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, or quality of life. Due to heterogeneity in definitions of the endpoints between trials, and differences in postoperative management, future research should be based on clearly defined endpoints and standardised perioperative management, to potentially elucidate differences between these two procedures. Novel strategies should be evaluated for prophylaxis and treatment of common complications, such as delayed gastric emptying.
Topics: Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 35014692
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011862.pub3 -
World Journal of Surgery Oct 2021This systematic review explored the efficacy of different pain relief modalities used in the management of postoperative pain following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review explored the efficacy of different pain relief modalities used in the management of postoperative pain following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP) and impact on perioperative outcomes.
METHODS
MEDLINE (OVID), Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science and CENTRAL databases were searched using PRISMA framework. Primary outcomes included pain on postoperative day 2 and 4 and respiratory morbidity. Secondary outcomes included operation time, bile leak, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatic fistula, length of stay, and opioid use.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials and seven retrospective cohort studies (1313 patients) were included in the systematic review. Studies compared epidural analgesia (EDA) (n = 845), patient controlled analgesia (PCA) (n = 425) and transabdominal wound catheters (TAWC) (n = 43). EDA versus PCA following PD was compared in eight studies (1004 patients) in the quantitative meta-analysis. Pain scores on day 2 (p = 0.19) and 4 (p = 0.18) and respiratory morbidity (p = 0.42) were comparable between EDA and PCA. Operative times, bile leak, delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic fistula, opioid use, and length of stay also were comparable between EDA and PCA. Pain scores and perioperative outcomes were comparable between EDA and PCA following DP and EDA and TAWC following PD.
CONCLUSIONS
EDA, PCA and TAWC are the most frequently used analgesic modalities in pancreatic surgery. Pain relief and other perioperative outcomes are comparable between them. Further larger randomized controlled trials are warranted to explore the relative merits of each analgesic modality on postoperative outcomes with emphasis on postoperative complications.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Pancreatectomy; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34185150
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-021-06217-x -
World Journal of Clinical Cases Dec 2022As operative techniques and mortality rates of pancreatectomy have improved, there has been a shift in focus to maintaining and improving the nutritional status of these...
BACKGROUND
As operative techniques and mortality rates of pancreatectomy have improved, there has been a shift in focus to maintaining and improving the nutritional status of these patients as we continue to learn more about post-operative complications. Although pancreatic endocrine and exocrine insufficiencies are known complications of pancreatectomy, increased longevity of these patients has also led to a higher incidence of fatty liver disease which differs from traditional fatty liver disease given the lack of metabolic syndrome.
AIM
To identify and summarize patterns and risk factors of post-pancreatectomy fatty liver disease to guide future management.
METHODS
We performed a database search on PubMed selecting papers published between 2001 and 2022 in the English language. PubMed was last accessed 1 June 2022.
RESULTS
Various factors influence the development of fatty liver including indication for surgery (benign malignant), type of pancreatectomy, amount of pancreas remnant, and peri-operative nutritional status. With an incidence rate up to 75%, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) can develop within 12 mo after pancreatectomy and various risk factors have been established including pancreatic resection line and remnant pancreas volume, peri-operative malnutrition and weight loss, pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (EPI), malignancy as the indication for surgery, and postmenopausal status.
CONCLUSION
Since majority of risk factors leads to EPI and malnutrition, peri-operative focus on nutrition and enzymes replacement is key in preventing and treating NAFLD after pancreatectomy.
PubMed: 36569000
DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i35.12946