-
Annals of Surgical Oncology Feb 2016Studies have been published comparing spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) with distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS), but the results remain... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Studies have been published comparing spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) with distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS), but the results remain inconsistent. The aim of this study was to compare SPDP with DPS by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Literature searches of the Medline/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were performed to identify relevant studies published before April 30,2015. Perioperative outcomes of SPDP and DPS were evaluated. The meta-analysis was performed in random- or fixed-effects models, as appropriate. A subanalysis was conducted to compare the two techniques of splenic preservation: splenic vessel preservation (SVP) and Warshaw technique (WT).
RESULTS
Eighteen studies and 1156 patients were included in the comparison between SPDP and DPS. A total of 502 of these patients underwent SPDP and 654 underwent DPS. Meta-analysis showed the SPDP group had significantly fewer infectious complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.57, P = 0.006), less operative blood loss (P<0.0001), lower overall morbidity rate (OR 0.66, P = 0.002), and lower clinical pancreatic fistula rate (OR 0.42, P = 0.002) than the DPS group. Subanalysis indicated the SVP group had significantly lower rate of spleen infarction (OR 0.12, P<0.00001) and fewer secondary splenectomies (OR 0.13, P = 0.008) than the WT group.
CONCLUSIONS
SPDP was a safe procedure associated with better short-term outcomes than DPS. SVP could provide more sufficient blood perfusion for the conserved spleen than WT. However, the evidence is limited, and more randomized controlled trials are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Splenectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26493758
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4870-z -
Assessment of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied... Mar 2022The surgical benefits of open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) as a treatment for pancreatic disease in the body or tail were... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The surgical benefits of open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) as a treatment for pancreatic disease in the body or tail were compared.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We searched PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from 1 August 1990 to 1 July 2019. Studies comparing total LDP and ODP were included.
RESULTS
In total, we reviewed 30 studies covering 4040 subjects. The analysis displayed a similar incidence of CR-POPF and POPF between ODP and LDP groups. The findings indicate that LDP correlates with fewer total complications, lower estimated blood loss, shorter length of stay and shorter postoperative hospital stay. There was no significant difference in the operation time, R0 resection, postoperative hemorrhage, number of lymph nodes collected, reoperation, major complications, or mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
Application of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (2017) criteria in this meta-analysis showed that LDP had surgical outcomes comparable with those of ODP. However, LDP has the benefits of causing a relatively lower estimated blood loss, a small number of total complications, and a shorter hospital stay. We, however, note that further high-quality and controlled trials are required to comprehensively compare these treatments.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32903097
DOI: 10.1080/13645706.2020.1812664 -
Surgical Endoscopy May 2024Central pancreatectomy is a surgical procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors which located in the neck and proximal body of the pancreas that facilitates the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Central pancreatectomy is a surgical procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors which located in the neck and proximal body of the pancreas that facilitates the preservation of pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions but has a high morbidity rate, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy (MICP) and open central pancreatectomy (OCP) basing on perioperative outcomes.
METHODS
An extensive literature search to compare MICP and OCP was conducted from October 2003 to October 2023 on PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Fixed-effect models or random effects were selected based on heterogeneity, and pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies with a total of 510 patients were included. There was no significant difference in POPF between MICP and OCP (OR = 0.95; 95% CI [0.64, 1.43]; P = 0.82), whereas intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 125.13; 95% CI [- 194.77, -55.49]; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD = - 2.86; 95% CI [- 5.00, - 0.72]; P = 0.009) were in favor of MICP compared to OCP, and there was a strong trend toward a lower intraoperative transfusion rate in MICP than in OCP (MD = 0.34; 95% CI [0.11, 1.00]; P = 0.05). There was no significant difference in other outcomes between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
MICP was as safe and effective as OCP and had less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay. However, further studies are needed to confirm the results.
PubMed: 38816619
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10900-0 -
Endocrine Journal 2015Islet autotransplantation (IAT) is a viable treatment for patients with severe chronic pancreatitis, this modality may prevent brittle diabetes mellitus after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Islet autotransplantation (IAT) is a viable treatment for patients with severe chronic pancreatitis, this modality may prevent brittle diabetes mellitus after pancreatectomy. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluated the outcomes of IAT after TP and discuss the factors that may affect the efficacy of this procedure. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1977 to 30 April 2014. Cohort Studies reported patients with IAT after TP were included. The studies and data were identified and extracted by two reviewers independently. Data were analyzed using STATA 12.0 and Comprehensive Meta AnalysisV2 software. Random effects model, meta-regression analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias were conducted to improve the comprehensive analysis. Twelve studies reporting the outcomes of 677 patients were included in this review. The insulin independent rate for IAT after TP at last follow-up was 3.72 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 1.00-6.44). The 30-day mortality was 2.1% (95% CI: 1.2-3.8%). The mortality at last follow-up was 1.09 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 0.21-1.97). Factors associated with incidence density of insulin independence in univariate meta-regression analyses included islet equivalents per kg body weight (IEQ/kgBW) (P=0.026). Our systematic review suggests that IAT is a safe modality for patients with CP need to undergo TP. A significant number of patients will achieve insulin independence for a long time after receiving enough IEQ/kgBW.
Topics: Humans; Islets of Langerhans Transplantation; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Transplantation, Autologous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25735805
DOI: 10.1507/endocrj.EJ14-0510 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology May 2015To investigate whether prophylactic abdominal drainage is necessary after pancreatic resection. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To investigate whether prophylactic abdominal drainage is necessary after pancreatic resection.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to obtain relevant articles published before January 2014. Publications were retrieved if they met the selection criteria. The outcomes of interest included: mortality, morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-PF), abdominal abscess, reoperation rate, the rate of interventional radiology drainage, and the length of hospital stay. Subgroup analyses were also performed for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and for distal pancreatectomy. Begg's funnel plot and the Egger regression test were employed to assess potential publication bias.
RESULTS
Nine eligible studies involving a total of 2794 patients were identified and included in this meta-analysis. Of the included patients, 1373 received prophylactic abdominal drainage. A fixed-effects model meta-analysis showed that placement of prophylactic drainage did not have beneficial effects on clinical outcomes, including morbidity, POPF, CR-PF, reoperation, interventional radiology drainage, and length of hospital stay (Ps > 0.05). In addition, prophylactic drainage did not significantly increase the risk of abdominal abscess. Overall analysis showed that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage resulted in higher mortality after pancreatectomy (OR = 1.56; 95%CI: 0.93-2.92). Subgroup analysis of PD showed similar results to those in the overall analysis. Elimination of prophylactic abdominal drainage after PD led to a significant increase in mortality (OR = 2.39; 95%CI: 1.22-4.69; P = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection is still necessary, though more evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing prophylactic drainage after PD and distal pancreatectomy are needed.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Chi-Square Distribution; Drainage; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Reoperation; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 25987799
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i18.5719 -
International Journal of Surgery... Apr 2016Conventional pancreatic resections for pancreatic neck and body diseases include pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy, and total... (Review)
Review
Conventional pancreatic resections for pancreatic neck and body diseases include pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy, and total pancreatectomy. Recent studies have reported encouraging results of non-traditional pancreatic resections, including central pancreatectomy (CP), for central pancreatic disease. This surgical approach offers the potentials of low postoperative morbidity and preservation of metabolic functions. This study performs a systematic review on CP. A comprehensive literature search was conducted, for the period 1992-2015, on three worldwide databases: PubMed, Scopus, ISI-Web of Knowledge. We focused on indications, morbidity and mortality of this surgical procedure. The review shows that CP is particularly suitable for small-medium size diseases localized into the pancreatic body. This procedure is associated with an increased postoperative morbidity but an excellent postoperative pancreatic function. CP is a safe and effective procedure when performed following the right indications.
Topics: Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 26708862
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.12.046 -
Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced... Nov 2020Endocrine insufficiency must be considered following distal pancreatectomy (DP), because diabetes mellitus can impose a long-term burden on patients. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Endocrine insufficiency must be considered following distal pancreatectomy (DP), because diabetes mellitus can impose a long-term burden on patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify the incidence and severity of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM) after DP for benign and malignant tumors, and other indications. Articles reporting NODM after DP from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were analyzed. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or MOGA scale. Inverse variance analysis calculated the overall NODM incidence, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and values were determined. Subgroup analyses considered pre-existing pancreatic diseases. The quantitative analysis involved 18 articles that described 2356 patients with pancreatic neoplasms or inflammatory lesions. The overall incidence of NODM after DP was 29% (95% CI 25-33). The NODM rates were 23% (95% CI 17-30) and 38% (95% CI 30-45) for patients with pancreatic neoplasms and chronic pancreatitis, respectively. Pre-existing chronic pancreatitis and being male were risks associated with NODM. NODM is fairly common after DP. Surgeons and patients should be aware of postoperative treatment-dependent endocrine dysfunction. Larger cohort studies are required to clarify the risk factors for NODM after DP.
Topics: Aged; Diabetes Complications; Diabetes Mellitus; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Postoperative Period; Prognosis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32559393
DOI: 10.1089/lap.2020.0090 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jun 2022The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated systematically. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the outcomes of EUSD in patients with PFC after pancreas surgery and compare it with percutaneous drainage (PCD).
METHODS
PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes EUSD in treatment of PFC after pancreas surgeries, from their inception until January 2022. Two meta-analyses were performed: (A) a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of EUSD (meta-analysis A) and (B) two-arm meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of EUSD and PCD (meta-analysis B). Pooled proportion of the outcomes in meta-analysis A as well as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) in meta-analysis B was calculated to determine the technical and clinical success rates, complications rate, hospital stay, and recurrence rate. ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
The literature search retrieved 610 articles, 25 of which were eligible for inclusion. Included clinical studies comprised reports on 695 patients. Twenty-five studies (477 patients) were included in meta-analysis A and eight studies (356 patients) were included in meta-analysis B. In meta-analysis A, the technical and clinical success rates of EUSD were 94% and 87%, respectively, with post-procedural complications of 14% and recurrence rates of 9%. Meta-analysis B showed comparable technical and clinical success rates as well as complications rates between EUSD and PCD. EUSD showed significantly shorter duration of hospital stay compared to that of patients treated with PCD.
CONCLUSION
EUSD seems to be associated with high technical and clinical success rates, with low rates of procedure-related complications. Although EUSD leads to shorter hospital stay compared to PCD, the certainty of evidence was low in this regard.
Topics: Drainage; Endosonography; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Pancreatic Diseases
PubMed: 35246738
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09137-6 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2022Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is widely used to remove benign or low-grade malignant neoplasms located in the pancreatic body and tail. Both splenic vessels... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is widely used to remove benign or low-grade malignant neoplasms located in the pancreatic body and tail. Both splenic vessels preserving (SVP-DP) and splenic vessels ligating (Warshaw technique [WT]) distal pancreatectomy are safe and effective methods but which technique is superior remains controversial. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent both methods.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Major databases, including PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and The Cochrane Library, were searched for studies comparing SVP-DP and the WT for spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy up to December 2021. The perioperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the SVP-DP and WT groups. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models.
RESULTS
Twenty retrospective studies with 2173 patients were analyzed. A total of 1467 (67.5%) patients underwent SVP-DP, while 706 (32.5%) patients underwent WT. Patients in the SVP-DP group had a significantly lower rate of splenic infarction (OR: 0.17; 95% CI, 0.11-0.25; P < 0.00001) and incidence of gastric varices (OR: 0.19; 95% CI, 0.11-0.32; P < 0.00001) compared to the patients in the WT group; furthermore, they had a shorter length of hospital stay (WMD: 0.71; 95% CI, -1.13 to -0.29; P = 0.0008). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of major complication, postoperative pancreatic fistula (B/C), reoperation, blood loss, or operation time.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to WT, SVP-DP should be preferred to reduce splenic infarction and gastric varices, and WT may be more suitable for large tumors. Moreover, considering the shortcomings of retrospective study, a multicenter randomized controlled study with a large sample size should be conducted to verify our results.
Topics: Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Humans; Laparoscopy; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Splenic Artery; Splenic Infarction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35605839
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106686 -
Surgery Jan 2015Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is regarded as a feasible and safe surgical alternative to open distal pancreatectomy for lesions of the pancreatic tail and body. The... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is regarded as a feasible and safe surgical alternative to open distal pancreatectomy for lesions of the pancreatic tail and body. The aim of the present systematic review was to provide recommendations for clinical practice and research on the basis of surgical morbidity, such as pancreas fistula, delayed gastric empting, safety, and clinical significance of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for malignant and nonmalignant diseases of the pancreas.
METHODS
A systematic literature search (MEDLINE) was performed to identify all types of studies comparing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy. Random effects meta-analyses were calculated after critical appraisal of the included studies and presented as odds ratios or mean differences each with corresponding 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
A total of 4,148 citations were retrieved initially; available data of 29 observational studies (3,701 patients overall) were included in the meta-analyses. Five systematic reviews on the same topic were found and critically appraised. Meta-analyses showed superiority of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in terms of blood loss, time to first oral intake, and hospital stay. All other parameters of operative morbidity and safety showed no difference. Data on oncologic radicality and effectiveness are limited.
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy seems to be a safe and effective alternative to open distal pancreatectomy. No more nonrandomized trials are needed within this context. A large, randomized trial is warranted and should focus on oncologic effectiveness, defined end points, and cost-effectiveness.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25482464
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.06.081