-
The American Surgeon Dec 2023Completion pancreatectomy (C.P.) is one acceptable treatment of choice in clinical scenarios such as management of post-pancreatectomy complications and recurrence in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE (S)
Completion pancreatectomy (C.P.) is one acceptable treatment of choice in clinical scenarios such as management of post-pancreatectomy complications and recurrence in the pancreatic remnant. Studies referring to completion pancreatectomy as a distinct operation are limited, without emphasizing at the operation itself, rather reporting completion pancreatectomy as a possible option for treatment of various diseases. The identification of indications of CP in various pathologies and the clinical outcomes are therefore mandatory.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in the Pubmed and Scopus Databases (February 2020),guided by the PRISMA protocol, for all studies reporting CP as a surgical procedure with reference at indications for performing it combined with postoperative morbidity and/or mortality.
RESULTS
Out of 1647 studies, 32 studies from 10 countries with 2775 patients in total, of whom 561 (20.2%) CPs met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Inclusion year ranged from 1964 to 2018 and were published from 1992 until 2019. 17 studies with a total number of 249 CPs were performed for post-pancreatectomy complications. Mortality rate was 44.5% (111 out of 249). Morbidity rate was (72.6%). 12 studies with 225 CPs were performed for isolated local recurrence after initial resection with a morbidity rate of 21.5% and 0% mortality rate in the early postoperative period. Two studies with a total number of 12 patients reported CP as a treatment option for recurrent neuroendocrine neoplasms. The mortality in those studies was 8% (1/12) and the mean morbidity rate was 58.3% (7/12). Finally, CP for refractory chronic pancreatitis was presented in one study with morbidity and mortality rates of 19% and 0%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Completion pancreatectomy is a distinct treatment option for various pathologies. Morbidity and mortality rates depend on the indications of performing CP, the status performance of the patients and whether the operation is performed electively or urgently
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pancreas; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Retrospective Studies; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37295804
DOI: 10.1177/00031348231183121 -
Annals of Surgery Oct 2023Examine the potential benefit of total pancreatectomy (TP) as an alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Role of Total Pancreatectomy as an Alternative to Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients at High Risk for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: Is it a Justifiable Indication?
OBJECTIVE
Examine the potential benefit of total pancreatectomy (TP) as an alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA
TP is mentioned as an alternative to PD in patients at high risk for POPF, but a systematic review is lacking.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analyses using Pubmed, Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane Library to identify studies published up to October 2022, comparing elective single-stage TP for any indication versus PD in patients at high risk for POPF. The primary endpoint was short-term mortality. Secondary endpoints were major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) on the short-term and quality of life.
RESULTS
After screening 1212 unique records, five studies with 707 patients (334 TP and 373 high-risk PD) met the eligibility criteria, comprising one randomized controlled trial and four observational studies. The 90-day mortality after TP and PD did not differ (6.3% vs. 6.2%; RR=1.04 [95%CI 0.56-1.93]). Major morbidity rate was lower after TP compared to PD (26.7% vs. 38.3%; RR=0.65 [95%CI 0.48-0.89]), but no significance was seen in matched/randomized studies (29.0% vs. 36.9%; RR = 0.73 [95%CI 0.48-1.10]). Two studies investigated quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) at a median of 30-52 months, demonstrating comparable global health status after TP and PD (77% [±15] vs. 76% [±20]; P =0.857).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis found no reduction in short-term mortality and major morbidity after TP as compared to PD in patients at high risk for POPF. However, if TP is used as a bail-out procedure, the comparable long-term quality of life is reassuring.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Quality of Life; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37161977
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005895 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2023The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety and effectiveness regarding outcomes of minimally invasive total pancreatectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety and effectiveness regarding outcomes of minimally invasive total pancreatectomy (MITP) versus open total pancreatectomy (OTP).
BACKGROUND
Total pancreatectomy is a complicated operation in abdominal surgery. The flexibility of minimally invasive surgery offers a new surgical approach to this technology. At present, there is little research on MITP, and its advantages over OTP remain uncertain.
METHODS
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted basing on comparative studies between MITP and OTP from January 1943 to November 2022. Intraoperative outcomes and postoperative outcomes were assessed. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences with a 95% CI were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models under heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Seven studies with a total of 4275 patients were included. The major morbidity in the MITP group was significant lower (OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.30-0.84, P=0.008, I²= 0%) than OTP group. At the same time, comparing with OTP, the MITP group had lower estimated blood loss (MD -362.50, 95% CI -641.34 to -83.66, P=0.01, I²=96%) and lower intraoperative transfusion rate (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16-0.84, P=0.02, I²=0%). There were no significant differences between the MITP and OTP groups for other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggested that MITP was associated with lower major morbidity, estimated blood loss, and intraoperative transfusion rate comparing with OTP. However, the further evidence with a better design is required.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Blood Loss, Surgical; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Length of Stay; Blood Transfusion; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37485920
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000392 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Feb 2022Central pancreatectomy is usually performed to excise lesions of the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. In the last decade, thanks to the advent of novel... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Central pancreatectomy is usually performed to excise lesions of the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. In the last decade, thanks to the advent of novel technologies, surgeons have started to perform this procedure robotically. This review aims to appraise the results and outcomes of robotic central pancreatectomies (RCP) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web Of Science identified studies reporting outcomes of RCP. Pooled prevalence rates of postoperative complications and mortality were computed using random-effect modelling.
RESULTS
Thirteen series involving 265 patients were included. In all cases but one, RCP was performed to excise benign or low-grade tumours. Clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 42.3% of patients. While overall complications were reported in 57.5% of patients, only 9.4% had a Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III. Re-operation was necessary in 0.7% of the patients. New-onset diabetes occurred postoperatively in 0.3% of patients and negligible mortality and open conversion rates were observed.
CONCLUSION
RCP is safe and associated with low perioperative mortality and well preserved postoperative pancreatic function, although burdened by high overall morbidity and POPF rates.
Topics: Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 34625342
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.09.014 -
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 -
Cancers Sep 2023Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of postoperative pancreatic insufficiency. The robotic platform is increasingly being used for these procedures. We sought to evaluate robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy and assess its complication profile and efficacy.
METHODS
This systematic review consisted of all studies on robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy (central pancreatectomy, duodenum-preserving partial pancreatic head resection, enucleation, and uncinate resection) published between January 2001 and December 2022 in PubMed and Embase.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies were included in this review ( = 788). Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy is being performed worldwide for benign or indolent pancreatic lesions. When compared to the open approach, robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomies led to a longer average operative time, shorter length of stay, and higher estimated intraoperative blood loss. Postoperative pancreatic fistula is common, but severe complications requiring intervention are exceedingly rare. Long-term complications such as endocrine and exocrine insufficiency are nearly nonexistent.
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy appears to have a higher risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula but is rarely associated with severe or long-term complications. Careful patient selection is required to maximize benefits and minimize morbidity.
PubMed: 37686648
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15174369 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2023The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.
METHOD
The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.
CONCLUSION
Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Retrospective Studies; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Pancreas; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 37572127
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03017-w -
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aug 2023Limited data are available on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic total pancreatectomy (RTP). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Limited data are available on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic total pancreatectomy (RTP). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of RTP and open total pancreatectomy (OTP). We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis according to the PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. We included studies conducted through August 10, 2022, that systematically searched electronic databases and compared RTP with OTP. We retained four controlled clinical trials in the literature search, including 156 patients: 65 in the RTP group and 91 in the OTP group. There was no difference between the RTP group and OTP group in terms of mortality, severe complications, morbidity, bleeding, biliary leak, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, operative time, length of stay, harvested lymph nodes, and positive resection margin. The RTP reduces the delay of the first liquid diet, first oral diet, and out of bed. RTP is feasible and safe in selected patients. Robotic surgery allows for a quicker recovery. In cases of major vessel invasion, conversion to laparotomy should be preoperatively considered.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Postoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Robotics; Length of Stay; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36920720
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01569-z -
Annals of Surgery Mar 2021Describe clinical outcomes (eg, postoperative complications, survival) after robotic surgery compared to open or laparoscopic surgery.
OBJECTIVE
Describe clinical outcomes (eg, postoperative complications, survival) after robotic surgery compared to open or laparoscopic surgery.
BACKGROUND
Robotic surgery utilization has increased over the years across a wide range of surgical procedures. However, evidence supporting improved clinical outcomes after robotic surgery is limited.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of systematic reviews from inception to January 2019 for systematic reviews describing postoperative outcomes after robotic surgery. We qualitatively described patient outcomes of commonly performed robotic procedures: radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, lobectomy, thymectomy, rectal resection, partial nephrectomy, distal gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, hepatectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and cholecystectomy.
RESULTS
One hundred fifty-four systematic reviews included 336 studies and 18 randomized controlled trials reporting on patient outcomes after robotic compared to laparoscopic or open procedures. Data from the randomized controlled trials demonstrate that robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy offered fewer biochemical recurrence and improvement in quality of recovery and pain scores only up to 6 weeks postoperatively compared to open radical prostatectomy. When compared to laparoscopic prostatectomy, robotic surgery offered improved urinary and sexual functions. Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer had fewer conversion to open compared to laparoscopic. Otherwise, robotic surgery outcomes were similar to conventional surgical approaches for other procedures except for radical hysterectomy where minimally invasive approaches may result in patient harm compared to open approach.
CONCLUSION
Robotic surgery has been widely incorporated into practise despite limited supporting evidence. More rigorous research focused on patient-important benefits is needed before further expansion of robotic surgery.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Laparotomy; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Survival Rate
PubMed: 32398482
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003915 -
Cancer Management and Research 2019To assess whether total pancreatectomy (TP) is as feasible, safe, and efficacious as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Major databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Science... (Review)
Review
To assess whether total pancreatectomy (TP) is as feasible, safe, and efficacious as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Major databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, were searched for studies comparing TP and PD between January 1943 and June 2018. The meta-analysis only included studies that were conducted after 2000. The primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality. Pooled odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences (WMDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed effects or random effects models. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. In total, 45 studies were included in this systematic review, and 5 non-randomized comparative studies with 786 patients (TP: 270, PD: 516) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no differences in terms of mortality (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.66-3.16; =0.36), hospital stay (WMD: -0.60, 95% CI: -1.78-0.59; =0.32) and rates of reoperation (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.55-2.31; =0.75) between the two groups. In addition, morbidity was not significantly different between the two groups (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.01-1.97; =0.05); however, the results showed that the TP group tended to have more complications than the PD group. Furthermore, the operation time (WMD: 29.56, 95% CI: 8.23-50.89; =0.007) was longer in the TP group. Blood loss (WMD: 339.96, 95% CI: 117.74-562.18; =0.003) and blood transfusion (OR: 4.86, 95% CI: 1.93-12.29; =0.0008) were more common in the TP group than in the PD group. There were no differences in the long-term survival rates between the two groups. This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that TP may not be as feasible and safe as PD. However, TP and PD may have the same efficacy.
PubMed: 31123419
DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S195726