-
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Prophylactic intra-peritoneal drainage has been considered to be an effective measure to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatectomy. However, routinely...
INTRODUCTION
Prophylactic intra-peritoneal drainage has been considered to be an effective measure to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatectomy. However, routinely placed drainage during abdominal surgery may be unnecessary or even harmful to some patients, due to the possibility of increasing complications. And there is still controversy about the prophylactic intra-peritoneal drainage after pancreatectomy. This meta-analysis aimed to analyze the incidence of complications after either pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) in the drain group and no-drain group.
METHODS
Data were retrieved from four electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to December 2020, including the outcomes of individual treatment after PD and DP, mortality, morbidity, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), bile leak, wound infection, postoperative hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), intra-abdominal abscess, reoperation, intervened radiology (IR), and readmission. Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and the criteria of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of studies included.
RESULTS
We included 15 studies after strict screening. 13 studies with 16,648 patients were analyzed to assess the effect of drain placement on patients with different surgery procedures, and 4 studies with 6,990 patients were analyzed to assess the effect of drain placement on patients with different fistula risk. For patients undergoing PD, the drain group had lower mortality but higher rate of CR-POPF than the no-drain group. For patients undergoing DP, the drain group had higher rates of CR-POPF, wound infection and readmission. There were no significant differences in bile leak, hemorrhage, DGE, intra-abdominal abscess, and IR in either overall or each subgroup. For Low-risk subgroup, the rates of hemorrhage, DGE and morbidity were higher after drainage. For High-risk subgroup, the rate of hemorrhage was higher while the rates of reoperation and morbidity were lower in the drain group.
CONCLUSIONS
Intraperitoneal drainage may benefit some patients undergoing PD, especially those with high pancreatic fistula risk. For DP, current evidences suggest that routine drainage might not benefit patients, but no clear conclusions can be drawn because of the study limitations.
PubMed: 34094952
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.658829 -
Gland Surgery Dec 2021C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) have recently been used to diagnose and screen for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) following...
BACKGROUND
C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) have recently been used to diagnose and screen for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), but their reliability is still unclear. Our study aims to assess the efficacy of CRP and PCT in the diagnosis of POPF after PD.
METHODS
Electronic databases such as PubMed, Excerpta Medica (EMBASE), the Web of Science (WOS) and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were used to search for studies and full-text articles that assessed the diagnostic efficacy of CRP and PCT for POPF. Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 14.0 were used to estimate the pooled diagnostic value of CRP and PCT. Sensitivity analyses and Deeks' funnel plot tests were conducted on the selected studies.
RESULTS
Twenty studies that satisfied the established selection criteria were chosen. Both CRP and PCT were shown to be highly effective in diagnosing POPF, each with a high area under the curve (AUC). The AUC of CRP on postoperative day (POD) 4 had a value of 0.86, with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.85 and 0.69, respectively. The AUC of PCT on POD 5 had a value of 0.87, with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.84 and 0.74, respectively.
DISCUSSION
Our research supports the hypothesis that CRP and PCT are valuable diagnostic tools for predicting POPF, especially given the CRP levels on POD 4 and PCT levels on POD 5. Limited by the small number of the studies analyzed herein, we recommend that more randomized controlled trials be performed to verify our conclusions.
PubMed: 35070885
DOI: 10.21037/gs-21-658 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022This meta-analysis compares the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic and...
Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumor: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies.
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis compares the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic and periampullary tumors.
BACKGROUND
LPD has been increasingly applied in the treatment of pancreatic and periampullary tumors. However, the perioperative outcomes of LPD versus OPD are still controversial.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) comparing LPD versus OPD for pancreatic and periampullary tumors. The main outcomes were mortality, morbidity, serious complications, and hospital stay. The secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), bile leak (BL), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), lymph nodes harvested, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. RCTs were evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. NRCTs were assessed using a modified tool from the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022338832).
RESULTS
Four RCTs and 35 NRCTs concerning a total of 40,230 patients (4,262 LPD and 35,968 OPD) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR 0.91, = 0.35), serious complications (OR 0.97, = 0.74), POPF (OR 0.93, = 0.29), PPH (OR 1.10, = 0.42), BL (OR 1.28, = 0.22), harvested lymph nodes (MD 0.66, = 0.09), reoperation (OR 1.10, = 0.41), and readmission (OR 0.95, = 0.46) between LPD and OPD. Operative time was significantly longer for LPD (MD 85.59 min, < 0.00001), whereas overall morbidity (OR 0.80, < 0.00001), hospital stay (MD -2.32 days, < 0.00001), blood loss (MD -173.84 ml, < 0.00001), transfusion (OR 0.62, = 0.0002), and DGE (OR 0.78, = 0.002) were reduced for LPD. The R0 rate was higher for LPD (OR 1.25, = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
LPD is associated with non-inferior short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to OPD when performed by experienced surgeons at large centers. LPD may result in reduced overall morbidity, blood loss, transfusion, and DGE, but longer operative time. Further RCTs should address the potential advantages of LPD over OPD.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022338832.
PubMed: 36761416
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1093395 -
Scandinavian Journal of Surgery : SJS :... Jun 2024Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) occurs in 20%-40% of patients and remains a leading cause of morbidity... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) occurs in 20%-40% of patients and remains a leading cause of morbidity and increased healthcare cost in this patient group. Recently, several studies suggested decreased risk of CR-POPF with the use of peri-firing compression (PFC) technique. The aim of this report was to conduct a systematic review to get an overview of the current knowledge on the use of PFC in DP. In addition, our experience with PFC was presented.
METHODS
The systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Also, 19 patients undergoing DP with the use of PFC at Oslo University Hospital were studied. The primary endpoint was incidence of CR-POPF.
RESULTS
Seven articles reporting a total of 771 patients were ultimately included in the systematic review. Only two of these were case-control studies examining outcomes in patients with and without PFC, while the rest were case series. These were heterogeneous in terms of staplers used, cartridge selection policy, and PFC technique. Both case-control studies reported significantly reduced CR- POPF incidence with PFC. Eight (21%) of our patients developed CR-POPF after DP with PFC. Only one patient developed CR-POPF among those with pancreatic transection site thickness ⩽1.5 cm.
CONCLUSION
Evidence on potential benefits of PFC in DP is limited in quantity and quality. Our findings suggest that the use of PFC does not lead to reduction in the incidence of CR-POPF. Yet, there might be a benefit from PFC when dealing with a thin pancreas.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Complications; Male; Female; Middle Aged; Surgical Stapling; Aged
PubMed: 37982224
DOI: 10.1177/14574969231211084 -
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 -
World Journal of Surgery Oct 2023Minimally-invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is fraught with the risk of complication-related deaths (LEOPARD-2), a significant volume-outcome relationship and a long... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Minimally-invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is fraught with the risk of complication-related deaths (LEOPARD-2), a significant volume-outcome relationship and a long learning curve. With rates of conversion for MIPD approaching 40%, the impact of these on overall patient outcomes, especially, when unplanned, are yet to be fully elucidated. This study aimed to compare peri-operative outcomes of (unplanned) converted MIPD against both successfully completed MIPD and upfront open PD.
METHODS
A systematic review of major reference databases was undertaken. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day mortality. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to judge the quality of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed using pooled estimates, derived using random effects model.
RESULTS
Six studies involving 20,267 patients were included in the review. Pooled analysis demonstrated (unplanned) converted MIPD were associated with an increased 30-day (RR 2.83, CI 1.62- 4.93, p = 0.0002, I = 0%) and 90-day (RR 1.81, CI 1.16- 2.82, p = 0.009, I = 28%) mortality and overall morbidity (RR 1.41, CI 1.09; 1.82, p = 0.0087, I = 82%) compared to successfully completed MIPD. Patients undergoing (unplanned) converted MIPD experienced significantly higher 30-day mortality (RR 3.97, CI 2.07; 7.65, p < 0.0001, I = 0%), pancreatic fistula (RR 1.65, CI 1.22- 2.23, p = 0.001, I = 0%) and re-exploration rates (RR 1.96, CI 1.17- 3.28, p = 0.01, I = 37%) compared upfront open PD.
CONCLUSIONS
Patient outcomes are significantly compromised following unplanned intraoperative conversions of MIPD when compared to successfully completed MIPD and upfront open PD. These findings stress the need for objective evidence-based guidelines for patient selection for MIPD.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Databases, Factual; Patient Selection; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 37436469
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-023-07114-1 -
BMC Gastroenterology Feb 2021Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) is a complication of acute necrotizing pancreatitis in the neck and body of the pancreas often manifesting as persistent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) is a complication of acute necrotizing pancreatitis in the neck and body of the pancreas often manifesting as persistent pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) or external pancreatic fistula (EPF). This systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis aimed to review the definitions, clinical presentation, intervention, and outcomes for DPDS.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS databases were systematically searched until February 2020 using the PRISMA framework. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the success rates of endoscopic and surgical interventions for the treatment of DPDS. Success of DPDS treatment was defined as long-term resolution of symptoms without recurrence of PFC, EPF, or pancreatic ascites.
RESULTS
Thirty studies were included in the quantitative analysis comprising 1355 patients. Acute pancreatitis was the most common etiology (95.3%, 936/982), followed by chronic pancreatitis (3.1%, 30/982). DPDS commonly presented with PFC (83.2%, 948/1140) and EPF (13.4%, 153/1140). There was significant heterogeneity in the definition of DPDS in the literature. Weighted success rate of endoscopic transmural drainage (90.6%, 95%-CI 81.0-95.6%) was significantly higher than transpapillary drainage (58.5%, 95%-CI 36.7-77.4). Pairwise meta-analysis showed comparable success rates between endoscopic and surgical intervention, which were 82% (weighted 95%-CI 68.6-90.5) and 87.4% (95%-CI 81.2-91.8), respectively (P = 0.389).
CONCLUSIONS
Endoscopic transmural drainage was superior to transpapillary drainage for the management of DPDS. Endoscopic and surgical interventions had comparable success rates. The significant variability in the definitions and treatment strategies for DPDS warrant standardisation for further research.
Topics: Acute Disease; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Drainage; Humans; Pancreatic Ducts; Pancreatic Pseudocyst; Pancreatitis; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33632128
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-021-01663-2 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Jan 2024Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most common complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD); however, the global prevalence and risk factors for SSIs... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most common complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD); however, the global prevalence and risk factors for SSIs after PD remain unknown.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the prevalence of and risk factors for SSIs after PD.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Science Direct databases were systematically searched from inception to 1 December 2022. Observational studies reporting adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of risk factors for SSIs in patients undergoing PD were included. Two independent reviewers in teams performed data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and level of evidence analysis. The pooled results were estimated using a random-effects model. The statistic and Q statistic were used to assess heterogeneity. Funnel plots, Egger's regression test, and the trim-and-fill method were used to determine publication bias. The primary outcomes were identifying risk factors for SSIs after PD. The secondary outcomes were the pooled prevalence rates of SSIs.
RESULTS
A total of 98 704 patients from 45 studies were included, and 80% of the studies were considered high quality. The estimated pooled prevalence of SSIs was 23% (0.19-0.27, =97%). The prevalence of SSIs was found to be higher in Japan and lower in USA. Preoperative biliary stenting, higher body mass index (BMI), longer operation time, postoperative pancreatic fistula, soft pancreatic texture, perioperative blood transfusion, and cardiac disease were identified as significant risk factors for the development of SSIs after PD. Additionally, broad-spectrum antibiotics were a significant protective factor against SSIs. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis showed that the results were robust.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE
The prevalence of SSIs remains high and varies widely among regions. It is necessary to take effective preventive measures and carry out more prospective studies to further verify these results.
PubMed: 38222754
DOI: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001455 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Dec 2020Drains' role after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is debated by proponents of no drain, draining selected cases, and early drain removal. The aim of the study was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical drain management after the diagnosis of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: draining-tract-targeted works better than standard management.
PURPOSE
Drains' role after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is debated by proponents of no drain, draining selected cases, and early drain removal. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of "standard" and "draining-tract-targeted" management of abdominal drains still in situ after diagnosing a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).
METHODS
PubMed and Scopus were searched for "pancreaticoduodenectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy or duodenopancreatectomy," "Whipple," "proximal pancreatectomy," "pylorus-preserving pancreatectomy," and "postoperative pancreatic fistula or POPF.". Main outcomes included clinically relevant (CR) POPF, grade-C POPF, overall mortality, POPF-related mortality, and CR-POPF-related mortality. Secondary outcomes were incidence of radiological and/or endoscopic interventions, reoperations, and completion pancreatectomies.
RESULTS
Overall, 12,089 studies were retrieved by the search of the English literature (01/01/1990-31/12/2018). Three hundred and twenty-six studies (90,321 patients) reporting ≥ 100 PDs and ≥ 10 PD/year were finally included into the study. Average incidences were obtained by averaging the incidence rates reported in the single articles. Pooled incidences were calculated by combining the number of events and the total number of patients considered in the various studies. These were then meta-analyzed using DerSimonian and Laird's (1986) method. Pearson's chi-squared test was used to compare pooled incidences between groups. Post hoc testing was used to see which groups differed. The meta-analyzed incidences were compared using a fixed effect for moderators. "Draining-tract-targeted" management showed a significant advantage over "standard" management in four clinically relevant outcomes out of eight according to pool analysis and in one of them according to meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
Clinically, "draining-targeted" management of POPF should be preferred to "standard" management.
Topics: Drainage; Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 33104886
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-020-02005-8 -
The British Journal of Surgery Nov 2021Despite the fact that primary percutaneous catheter drainage has become standard practice, some patients with pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy ultimately... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Completion pancreatectomy or a pancreas-preserving procedure during relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicentre cohort study and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Despite the fact that primary percutaneous catheter drainage has become standard practice, some patients with pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy ultimately undergo a relaparotomy. The aim of this study was to compare completion pancreatectomy with a pancreas-preserving procedure in patients undergoing relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.
METHODS
This retrospective cohort study of nine institutions included patients who underwent relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy from 2005-2018. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
From 4877 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, 786 (16 per cent) developed a pancreatic fistula grade B/C and 162 (3 per cent) underwent a relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula. Of these patients, 36 (22 per cent) underwent a completion pancreatectomy and 126 (78 per cent) a pancreas-preserving procedure. Mortality was higher after completion pancreatectomy (20 (56 per cent) versus 40 patients (32 per cent); P = 0.009), which remained after adjusting for sex, age, BMI, ASA score, previous reintervention, and organ failure in the 24 h before relaparotomy (adjusted odds ratio 2.55, 95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 6.08). The proportion of additional reinterventions was not different between groups (23 (64 per cent) versus 84 patients (67 per cent); P = 0.756). The meta-analysis including 33 studies evaluating 745 patients, confirmed the association between completion pancreatectomy and mortality (Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model: odds ratio 1.99, 95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 3.84).
CONCLUSION
Based on the current data, a pancreas-preserving procedure seems preferable to completion pancreatectomy in patients in whom a relaparotomy is deemed necessary for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.
Topics: Cohort Studies; Drainage; Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Intraoperative Period; Laparotomy; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Reoperation; Survival Rate
PubMed: 34608941
DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znab273