-
Trials Sep 2022Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C.
METHODS/DESIGN
Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic catheter drainage, abdominal collections (not requiring drainage), wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage as defined by the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) (Wente et al., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007), length of stay (LOS), readmission within 90 days, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality.
DISCUSSION
PANDORINA is the first binational, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primary objective to evaluate the hypothesis that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after DP does not worsen the risk of postoperative severe complications (Wente etal., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007; Bassi et al., Surgery 161:584-91, 2017). Most of the published studies on drain placement after pancreatectomy focus on both pancreatoduodenectomy and DP, but these two entities present are associated with different complications and therefore deserve separate evaluation (McMillan et al., Surgery 159:1013-22, 2016; Pratt et al., J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264-78, 2006). The PANDORINA trial is innovative since it takes the preoperative risk on POPF into account based on the D-FRS and it warrants homogenous stump closing by using the same graded compression technique and same stapling device (de Pastena et al., Ann Surg 2022; Asbun and Stauffer, Surg Endosc 25:2643-9, 2011).
Topics: Abdomen; Drainage; Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36153559
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06736-5 -
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 -
Annals of Surgery Jul 2023The objective of this study was to identify the indications for and report the outcomes of completion pancreatectomy (CPLP) in the postoperative course after...
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to identify the indications for and report the outcomes of completion pancreatectomy (CPLP) in the postoperative course after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD).
BACKGROUND
CPLP may be considered or even inevitable for damage control after PD.
METHODS
A prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing PD between 2001 and 2019 was searched for patients who underwent CPLP in the postoperative course after PD. Baseline characteristics, perioperative details, and outcomes of CPLP patients were analyzed and specific indications for CPLP were identified.
RESULTS
A total of 3953 consecutive patients underwent PD during the observation period. CPLP was performed in 120 patients (3%) after a median of 10 days following PD. The main indications for CPLP included postpancreatectomy acute necrotizing pancreatitis [n=47 (39%)] and postoperative pancreatic fistula complicated by hemorrhage [n=41 (34%)] or associated with uncontrollable leakage of the pancreatoenteric anastomosis [n=23 (19%)]. The overall 90-day mortality rate of all 3953 patients was 3.5% and 37% for patients undergoing CPLP.
CONCLUSIONS
Our finding that only very few patients (3%) need CPLP suggests that conservative, interventional, and organ-preserving surgical measures are the mainstay of complication management after PD. Postpancreatectomy acute necrotizing pancreatitis, uncontrollable postoperative pancreatic fistula, and fistula-associated hemorrhage are highly dangerous and represent the main indications for CPLP after PD.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35781509
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005494 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Jun 2023Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) as well as postoperative biliary fistula (POBF) are considered the main source of postoperative morbidity and mortality after...
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) as well as postoperative biliary fistula (POBF) are considered the main source of postoperative morbidity and mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). However, little is known about the incidence and complications of combined POPF/POBF compared to isolated POPF or POBF.
METHODS
This single-center study investigated retrospectively the incidence and postoperative outcome of combined POPF/POBF compared to isolated fistulas following PD in a tertiary German pancreatic center between 2009 and 2018.
RESULTS
A total of 678 patients underwent PD for benign and malignant periampullary lesions. Combined fistulas occurred in 6%, isolated POPF in 16%, and isolated POBF in 2%. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and chronic pancreatitis had a protective effect on the occurrence of combined fistulas, whereas serous cystadenoma and pancreatic metastasis were risk factors. Morbidity (Grade C fistula, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage, revisional surgery) and mortality was significantly higher in patients with combined fistulas than in those with isolated fistula. Moreover, the duration of ICU stay was longer.
CONCLUSIONS
A combined POPF/POBF is associated with a significant increase of morbidity and mortality compared to isolated fistulas after PD. Early surgical revision in these patients may improve the postoperative survival rate.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Retrospective Studies; Biliary Fistula; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36842945
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.02.010 -
Surgery Jun 2023Difficulty scoring systems are important for the safe, stepwise implementation of new procedures. We designed a retrospective observational study for building a... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
BACKGROUND
Difficulty scoring systems are important for the safe, stepwise implementation of new procedures. We designed a retrospective observational study for building a difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.
METHODS
The difficulty score (PD-ROBOSCORE) aims at predicting severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The PD-ROBOSCORE was developed in a training cohort of 198 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies and was validated in an international multicenter cohort of 686 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. Finally, all centers tested the model during the early learning curve (n = 300). Growing difficulty levels (low, intermediate, high) were defined using cut-off values set at the 33rd and 66th percentile (NCT04662346).
RESULTS
Factors included in the final multivariate model were a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m for males and ≥30 kg/m for females (odds ratio:2.39; P < .0001), borderline resectable tumor (odd ratio:1.98; P < .0001), uncinate process tumor (odds ratio:1.69; P < .0001), pancreatic duct size <4 mm (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3 (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), and hepatic artery originating from the superior mesenteric artery (odds ratio:1.43; P < .0001). In the training cohort, the absolute score value (odds ratio = 1.13; P = .0089) and difficulty groups (odds ratio = 2.35; P = .041) predicted severe postoperative complications. In the multicenter validation cohort, the absolute score value predicted severe postoperative complications (odds ratio = 1.16, P < .001), whereas the difficulty groups did not (odds ratio = 1.94, P = .082). In the learning curve cohort, both absolute score value (odds ratio:1.078, P = .04) and difficulty groups (odds ratio: 2.25, P = .017) predicted severe postoperative complications. Across all cohorts, a PD-ROBOSCORE of ≥12.51 doubled the risk of severe postoperative complications. The PD-ROBOSCORE score also predicted operative time, estimated blood loss, and vein resection. The PD-ROBOSCORE predicted postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and postoperative mortality in the learning curve cohort.
CONCLUSION
The PD-ROBOSCORE predicts severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The score is readily available via www.pancreascalculator.com.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Pancreas; Robotics; Pancreatic Fistula; Retrospective Studies; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36973127
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.02.020 -
Surgery Nov 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy with a specific emphasis on the postoperative pancreatic fistula. For benign and low-grade malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and body, central pancreatectomy may be an alternative to distal pancreatectomy. Exocrine and endocrine insufficiency occur less often after central pancreatectomy, but the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula is higher.
METHODS
An electronic search was performed for studies on elective minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, which reported on major morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula in PubMed, Cochrane Register, Embase, and Google Scholar until June 1, 2021. A review protocol was developed a priori and registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021259738. A meta-regression was performed by using a random effects model.
RESULTS
Overall, 41 studies were included involving 1,004 patients, consisting of 158 laparoscopic minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, 80 robot-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, and 766 open central pancreatectomies. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was 14%, major morbidity 14%, and 30-day mortality 1%. The rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (17% vs 24%, P = .194), major morbidity (17% vs 14%, P = .672), and new-onset diabetes (3% vs 6%, P = .353) did not differ significantly between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, respectively. Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy was associated with significantly fewer blood transfusions, less exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and fewer readmissions compared with open central pancreatectomy. A meta-regression was performed with a random effects model between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy and showed no significant difference for postoperative pancreatic fistula (random effects model 0.16 [0.10; 0.24] with P = .789), major morbidity (random effects model 0.20 [0.15; 0.25] with P = .410), and new-onset diabetes mellitus (random effects model 0.04 [0.02; 0.07] with P = .651).
CONCLUSION
In selected patients and in experienced hands, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy is a safe alternative to open central pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant lesions of the neck and body. Ideally, further research should confirm this with the main focus on postoperative pancreatic fistula and endocrine and exocrine insufficiency.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35987787
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.06.024 -
Surgical Endoscopy Feb 2023The robotic platform is increasingly being utilized in pancreatic surgery, yet its overall merits and putative advantages remain to be adjudicated. We hypothesize that...
BACKGROUND
The robotic platform is increasingly being utilized in pancreatic surgery, yet its overall merits and putative advantages remain to be adjudicated. We hypothesize that the benefits of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery are maximized in pancreatic benign and premalignant disease, in the setting of friable pancreatic tissue and small pancreatic duct.
METHODS
Retrospective analysis of our prospectively maintained pancreatic database of all consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for benign or premalignant conditions between 2010 and 2020. Peri-operative outcomes and long-term complications were compared between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).
RESULTS
One hundred and eighty eight (n = 188) patients met our inclusion criteria, of which 68 were OPD and 120 RPD. Malignant histologies were excluded. There were only minor differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Post-operative merits of the RPD included lower clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula 10 (8.3%) vs 24 (35.3%), p < 0.001, fewer surgical site infections; 9 (7.5%) vs 11 (16.2%), p = 0.024, shorter operative time, greater lymph node yield; 29 (IQR 21, 38) vs 21 (IQR 13, 34), p = 0.001, and lower 90 days mortality; 1 (0.8%) vs 4 (5.9%), p = 0.039. Rates of long-term complications were similar, exception made for a higher occurrence of small bowel obstruction (SBO) 2 (1.7%) vs 4 (5.9%), p = 0.031 and need for surgical intervention for SBO 0 (0.0%) vs 2 (2.9%), p = 0.019 in the OPD group.
CONCLUSION
Our study suggests that RPD benefits include lower 90-day mortality, shorter LOS, and lower rates of selected complications compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Retrospective Studies; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36138252
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09632-w -
World Journal of Gastrointestinal... May 2022Due to the large number of operations, surgeons sometimes need to work overtime or even stay up late to perform pancreaticoduodenectomy. Fatigue and sleep deprivation...
BACKGROUND
Due to the large number of operations, surgeons sometimes need to work overtime or even stay up late to perform pancreaticoduodenectomy. Fatigue and sleep deprivation can result in an increased error rate at work. There have been numerous studies about the effect of overtime surgery on the prognosis of patients. However, the effect of overtime work for pancreaticoduodenectomy on the prognosis of patients is unclear. This study explores the impact of overtime work for pancreaticoduodenectomy on the prognosis of patients.
AIM
To explore the impact of overtime work for pancreaticoduodenectomy on the short-term prognosis of patients.
METHODS
This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study. The patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy between January 2017 and December 2019 were included. Patients were stratified by operative start time into the control group (surgery that started between 8:00 and 16:49) and the overtime group (surgery that started between 17:00 and 22:00) and compared intraoperative and postoperative parameters. The following parameters were compared between the overtime group and the control group: Operative time, blood loss, number of lymph nodes removed, duration of treatment in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and incidence of complications.
RESULTS
From January 2017 to December 2019, a total of 239 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy in the Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery of our institution. Four patients were excluded from this study due to lack of clinical data. A total of 235 patients were included, with 177 in the control group and 58 in the overtime group. There was no difference between the two groups in operative time, blood loss, number of lymph nodes removed, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, mortality during hospitalization. Compared with the control group, the overtime group had a higher incidence of pancreatic fistula (32.8% 15.8%, < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that overtime work, higher Body Mass Index were independent risk factors for pancreatic fistula ( < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Overtime work for pancreaticoduodenectomy increases the incidence of pancreatic fistula. The effect of overtime surgery on the long-term prognosis of patients' needs to be further studied.
PubMed: 35734628
DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v14.i5.419 -
Digestive Surgery 2023The identification of patients with low risk of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) and postoperative hemorrhage (PPH) can guide drain removal...
INTRODUCTION
The identification of patients with low risk of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) and postoperative hemorrhage (PPH) can guide drain removal after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). However, drain fluid amylase (DFA) ≤5,000 U/L on postoperative day (POD) 1 does not robustly predict the absence of CR-POPF.
METHODS
Consecutive patients undergoing PD at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between July 2018 and October 2021 were analyzed. Recursive partitioning analysis was used to classify patients into groups with different risks of CR-POPF and PPH.
RESULTS
Among 288 consecutive patients included, 99 patients (34.38%) developed CR-POPF (86 grade B and 13 grade C). Patients with CR-POPF had increased levels of preoperative creatinine (CRE) and POD1 CRE. The combination of POD1 CRE (>104 μmol/L or not) and POD1 DFA (>5,000 U/L or not) stratified patients into subgroups with the maximum difference in CR-POPF risk. The CR-POPF rates were 17.82% (36/202) in group A (POD1 CRE ≤104 μmol/L and POD1 DFA ≤5,000 U/L), 53.33% (8/15) in group B (POD1 CRE >104 μmol/L and POD1 DFA ≤5,000 U/L), and 77.46% (55/71) in group C (POD1 DFA >5,000 U/L). The PPH rates were 1.98% (4/202), 20.00% (3/15), and 19.72% (14/71) in groups A, B, and C, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Patients with POD1 DFA ≤5,000 U/L and POD1 CRE >104 μmol/L have a high risk of CR-POPF and may not benefit from early drain removal. Patients with POD1 DFA ≤5,000 U/L and POD1 CRE ≤104 μmol/L have low risk of CR-POPF and PPH.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Creatinine; Amylases; Time Factors; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Drainage; Risk Factors
PubMed: 37866358
DOI: 10.1159/000533869 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Jul 2020The number of pancreatic resections due to cancers is increasing. While concomitant venous resections are routinely performed in specialized centers, arterial resections... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The number of pancreatic resections due to cancers is increasing. While concomitant venous resections are routinely performed in specialized centers, arterial resections are still controversial. Nevertheless they are performed in patients presenting with locally advanced tumors. Our aim was to summarize currently available literature comparing peri-operative and long-term outcomes of arterial and non-arterial pancreatic resections.
METHODS
We included studies comparing pancreatic operations with and without concomitant arterial resection. Inclusion criteria were morbidity or mortality. Studies additionally reporting venous resections with no possibility of excluding this data during the extraction were discarded.
RESULTS
The initial search yielded 1651 records. Finally, 19 studies were included in the analysis involving 2710 patients. Arterial resection was associated with a greater risk of death(RR: 4.09; p < 0.001) and complications (RR: 1.4; p = 0.01). There were no differences in the rate of pancreatic fistula, biliary fistula rate, cardiopulmonary complications, length of hospital stay and non-R0 rate. Oncologically, patients after arterial resection were at higher risk of worse 3-year survival.
CONCLUSION
Arterial resection in pancreatic cancer is associated with an increased risk of mortality and complications in comparison to standard non-arterial resections. Nevertheless, arterial resection may become a viable treatment for selected patients in high volume centers.
Topics: Arteries; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Veins
PubMed: 32360186
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.04.005