-
Surgical Endoscopy Sep 2016The number of published series on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has significantly increased. Robotic systems can overcome some limitations of laparoscopy.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
The number of published series on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has significantly increased. Robotic systems can overcome some limitations of laparoscopy. This study aimed to compare two techniques in distal pancreatectomy.
METHODS
Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies (up to July 2015) that compared perioperative outcomes between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). Relative risks with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated.
RESULTS
Nine studies were enrolled in this review. Four studies reported on operative time, indicating no difference between the RDP and LDP groups (WMD = 21.55, 95 % CI -65.28-108.37, P = 0.63). No significant difference between the two groups was indicated with respect to the number of patients who converted to open (OR 0.35, 95 % CI 0.11-1.13, P = 0.08), spleen preservation rate (OR 2.37, 95 % CI 0.50-11.30, P = 0.28), and transfusion rate (OR 1.30, 95 % CI 0.54-3.13, P = 0.56). In addition, no difference was indicated in the incidence of pancreatic fistulas (OR 1.05, 95 % CI 0.67-1.65, P = 0.83) and length of hospital stay between the two groups (WMD = -0.61, 95 % CI -1.40-0.19, P = 0.13).
CONCLUSIONS
RDP seems to be a safe and effective alternative to LDP. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to verify the results of this meta-analysis.
Topics: Blood Transfusion; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Spleen; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26743110
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4723-7 -
Minerva Chirurgica Aug 2015Over the last decade, robotics has gained popularity and is increasingly employed to accomplish several abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, pancreatectomies are... (Review)
Review
Over the last decade, robotics has gained popularity and is increasingly employed to accomplish several abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, pancreatectomies are regarded as demanding procedures for which the application of minimally-invasive surgery is still limited and its effectiveness has not been conclusively established. We aimed to investigate the current role of robot-assisted surgery to perform distal pancreatectomy. A systematic review of the English-language literature was conducted for articles dealing with robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomies. All relevant papers were evaluated on surgical and oncological outcomes. A total of 10 articles reporting on robotic distal pancreatectomies were finally considered in the analysis, including 259 patients. Mean operative time was 271 minutes (range 181-398); mean blood loss was 210 mL (range 104-361), in 11.6% of cases conversion to laparotomy occurred, spleen preservation was accomplished in 51.4% of procedures, mean time of postoperative hospital stay was 7 days. Overall, postoperative mortality and morbidity were 0% and 23.4% respectively, the mean number of lymph nodes harvested was 12.7. In all included series, no case of R1 resection was reported. Despite its relatively recent introduction in clinical practice, robotic-assisted surgery has been widely employed to perform distal pancreatectomy worldwide and it should be considered a safe and effective procedure. Both surgical and pathologic data support its application in the management of pancreatic lesions of the body and tail.
Topics: Humans; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Spleen
PubMed: 25916194
DOI: No ID Found -
Cancers Apr 2021Major vascular invasion represents one of the most frequent reasons to consider pancreatic adenocarcinomas unresectable, although in the last decades, demolitive... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Major vascular invasion represents one of the most frequent reasons to consider pancreatic adenocarcinomas unresectable, although in the last decades, demolitive surgeries such as distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR) have become a therapeutical option.
METHODS
A meta-analysis of studies comparing DP-CAR and standard DP in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma was conducted. Moreover, a systematic review of studies analyzing oncological, postoperative and survival outcomes of DP-CAR was conducted.
RESULTS
Twenty-four articles were selected for the systematic review, whereas eleven were selected for the meta-analysis, for a total of 1077 patients. Survival outcomes between the two groups were similar in terms of 1 year overall survival (OS) (odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.31, = 0.24). Patients who received DP-CAR were more likely to have T4 tumors (OR 28.45, 95% CI 10.46 to 77.37, < 0.00001) and positive margins (R+) (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.17, = 0.008). Overall complications (OR, 1.72, 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.58, = 0.008) were more frequent in the DP-CAR group, whereas rates of pancreatic fistula (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.65, = 0.41) were similar.
CONCLUSIONS
DP-CAR was not associated with higher mortality compared to standard DP; however, overall morbidity was higher. Celiac axis involvement should no longer be considered a strict contraindication to surgery in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Considering the different baseline tumor characteristics, DP-CAR may need to be compared with palliative therapies instead of standard DP.
PubMed: 33921838
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13081967 -
The British Journal of Surgery Jan 2015Established closure techniques for the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy include stapler, suture and anastomotic closure. However, controversy remains... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Established closure techniques for the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy include stapler, suture and anastomotic closure. However, controversy remains regarding the ideal technique; therefore, the aim of this study was to compare closure techniques and risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out according to PRISMA guidelines for studies published before January 2014 that compared at least two closure techniques for the pancreatic remnant in distal pancreatectomy. A random-effects model was constructed using weighted odds ratios (ORs).
RESULTS
Thirty-seven eligible studies matched the inclusion criteria and 5252 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy were included. The primary outcome measure, the POPF rate, ranged 0 from to 70 per cent. Meta-analysis of the 31 studies comparing stapler versus suture closure showed that the stapler technique had a significantly lower rate of POPF, with a combined OR of 0.77 (95 per cent c.i. 0.61 to 0.98; P = 0.031). Anastomotic closure was associated with a significantly lower POPF rate than suture closure (OR 0.55, 0.31 to 0.98; P = 0.042). Combined stapler and suture closure had significantly lower POPF rates than suture closure alone, but no significant difference compared with stapler closure alone.
CONCLUSION
The use of stapler closure or anastomotic closure for the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy significantly reduces POPF rates compared with suture closure. The combination of stapler and suture closure shows superiority over suture closure alone.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Anastomosis, Surgical; Epidemiologic Methods; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Postoperative Complications; Surgical Stapling; Suture Techniques
PubMed: 25388952
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9653 -
Cancers Mar 2021To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the outcome of surgical treatment for isolated local recurrence of pancreatic cancer. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the outcome of surgical treatment for isolated local recurrence of pancreatic cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science.
RESULTS
Six studies concerning 431 patients with recurrent pancreatic cancer met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis: 176 underwent redo surgery, and 255 received non-surgical treatments. Overall survival and post-recurrence survival were significantly longer in the re-resected group (ratio of means (ROM) 1.99; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.54-2.56, = 75.89%, = 0.006, and ROM = 2.05; 95% CI, 1.48-2.83, = 76.39%, = 0.002, respectively) with a median overall survival benefit of 28.7 months (mean difference (MD) 28.7; 95% CI, 10.3-47.0, = 89.27%, < 0.001) and median survival benefit of 15.2 months after re-resection (MD 15.2; 95% CI, 8.6-21.8, = 58.22%, = 0.048).
CONCLUSION
Resection of isolated pancreatic cancer recurrences is safe and feasible and may offer a survival benefit. Selection of patients and assessment of time and site of recurrence are mandatory.
PubMed: 33805716
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13061277 -
Journal of B.U.ON. : Official Journal... 2020The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy (LPD) with Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy (RDP) in terms of length of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy (LPD) with Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy (RDP) in terms of length of hospital stay (LOS), perioperative, postoperative and economic parameters.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was undertaken and data from studies fulfilling the predetermined inclusion criteria were extracted. Meta-analyses were performed to combine the results of various studies in the forms of Weighted Mean Difference (WMD), Odds Ratio (OR) and Risk Difference (RD), as appropriate.
RESULTS
A significantly lower LOS (WMD:0.75, 95%CI:0.17-1.33) and longer operative duration (WMD:-28.29, 95%CI:-49.98--6.6) for the RDP group was found. The rate of open conversion was higher in the LDP group (OR:2.38, 95%CI:1.75-3.22), while the rate of spleen preservation was lower (OR:0.49, 95%CI:0.31-0.79). No significant difference was noted in the intraoperative blood loss (WMD:34, 95%CI:-10.28-78.29), postoperative blood transfusion (OR:0.99, 95%CI:0.66-1.49) and overall morbidity analyses (OR:1.08, 95%CI:0.88-1.32). A significantly higher yield of lymph nodes was achieved in the RDP group (WMD:-2.09, 95%CI:-4.17--0.01), while no differences were found when positive resection margins (RD:0.02, 95%CI:-0.02-0.07) and specimen length (WMD:0.08, 95%CI:0.42-0.58) were considered. Finally, RDP was associated with significantly higher operative (WMD:-2733.42, 95%CI:-4189.77--1277.08) and total (WMD:-3799.68, 95%CI: -4438.39--3160.98) costs.
CONCLUSION
RDP seems to be a viable option for both benign and malignant pancreatic disorders, although there are concerns regarding economic parameters. Large randomized controlled trials will shed more light on the subject.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreatectomy; Robotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33277870
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Sep 2021Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) occurs when pancreatic enzyme activity in the intestinal lumen is insufficient for normal digestion to occur. The true incidence...
BACKGROUND
Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) occurs when pancreatic enzyme activity in the intestinal lumen is insufficient for normal digestion to occur. The true incidence and diagnosis of EPI after pancreatectomy has not been fully understood and optimized. The aim of this study was to present incidence and diagnostic criteria for EPI after pancreatectomy for cancer and provide a guide for management and optimal therapy in pancreatectomy patients with cancer.
METHODS
A comprehensive review of the literature with publication dates from 2014 to 2019 was performed. A comprehensive diagnostic and treatment algorithm was then created based on literature review and current treatment options.
RESULTS
In total, 30 studies were included, 19 combined both pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP), 9 for central pancreatectomy, and 2 others. EPI was defined subjectively without definitive testing using any of the established diagnostic studies in the majority of studies 23 (76%). Preoperative EPI was calculated to be 11.52%. Most studies assessed exocrine function at least 6 months postoperatively with four studies extending the follow-up period beyond 12 months. EPI diagnosed postoperatively at 1 month (40.27%), 3 months (30.94%), 6 months (36.06%), and 12 months (34.69%). After PD, the median prevalence of postoperative EPI was 43.14%, CP, the median prevalence was 4.85%, DP, median prevalence of postoperative EPI of 11.94%.
CONCLUSION
EPI is a frequent outcome that is often misdiagnosed or under-reported by the patient post-pancreatectomy. Given the increasing overall survival in pancreatectomy patients for cancer, surgeon awareness and assessment is critical to improving patients' overall quality of life.
Topics: Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33483914
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-020-04883-1 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2023The best approach for treating benign or low-grade malignant lesions localized in the pancreatic neck or body remains debatable. Conventional pancreatoduodenectomy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The best approach for treating benign or low-grade malignant lesions localized in the pancreatic neck or body remains debatable. Conventional pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy (DP) are associated with a risk of impairment of pancreatic function at long-term follow-up. With advances in technology and surgical skills, the use of central pancreatectomy (CP) has gradually increased.
OBJECTIVES
The objective was to compare the safety, feasibility, and short-term and long-term clinical benefits of CP and DP in matched cases.
METHODS
The PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched to identify studies published from database inception to February 2022 that compared CP and DP. This meta-analysis was performed using R software.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies matched the selection criteria, including 774 CP and 1713 DP cases. CP was significantly associated with longer operative time ( P <0.0001), less blood loss ( P <0.01), overall and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula ( P <0.0001), postoperative hemorrhage ( P <0.0001), reoperation ( P =0.0196), delayed gastric emptying ( P =0.0096), increased hospital stay ( P =0.0002), intra-abdominal abscess or effusion ( P =0.0161), higher morbidity ( P <0.0001) and severe morbidity ( P <0.0001) but with a significantly lower incidence of overall endocrine and exocrine insufficiency ( P <0.01), and new-onset and worsening diabetes mellitus ( P <0.0001) than DP.
CONCLUSIONS
CP should be considered as an alternative to DP in selected cases such as without pancreatic disease, length of the residual distal pancreas is more than 5 cm, branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula after adequate evaluation.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Retrospective Studies; Pancreas; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37300889
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000326 -
Journal of Visceral Surgery Nov 2016Over recent years, minimally invasive pancreatic resections have increasingly been reported in the literature. Even though pancreatic surgery is still considered a... (Review)
Review
Over recent years, minimally invasive pancreatic resections have increasingly been reported in the literature. Even though pancreatic surgery is still considered a challenge for surgeons due to its technical difficulties and high morbidity, the development and spread of robotic surgery has highlighted a new interest, which has induced a rapid spread of robotic approaches for pancreatic resections. This study presents a systematic review of the literature regarding robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy in order to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic pancreatic resection.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 27185566
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.04.001 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2011Chronic pancreatitis affects 3-9 people in 100,000; 70% of cases are alcohol-induced. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Chronic pancreatitis affects 3-9 people in 100,000; 70% of cases are alcohol-induced.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of lifestyle interventions in people with chronic pancreatitis? What are the effects of dietary supplements in people with chronic pancreatitis? What are the effects of drug interventions in people with chronic pancreatitis? What are the effects of nerve blocks for pain relief in people with chronic pancreatitis? What are the effects of different invasive treatments for specific complications of chronic pancreatitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 27 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: avoiding alcohol consumption, biliary decompression, calcium supplements, ductal decompression (endoscopic or surgical), low-fat diet, nerve blocks, opioid analgesics, pancreatic enzyme supplements, pseudocyst decompression (endoscopic or surgical), resection using distal pancreatectomy, resection using pancreaticoduodenectomy (Kausch-Whipple or pylorus-preserving), and vitamin/antioxidant supplements.
Topics: Diet, Fat-Restricted; Endoscopy; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatitis, Chronic
PubMed: 22189345
DOI: No ID Found