-
World Journal of Surgery Sep 2018There is significant interest and controversy surrounding the effect of restrictive fluid management on outcomes in major gastrointestinal surgery. This has been most... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is significant interest and controversy surrounding the effect of restrictive fluid management on outcomes in major gastrointestinal surgery. This has been most studied in colorectal surgery, although the literature relating to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) patients is growing. The aim of this paper was to generate a comprehensive review of the available evidence for restrictive perioperative fluid management strategies and outcomes in PD.
METHODS
MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 2017. A review protocol was utilized and registered with PROSPERO. Primary citations that evaluated perioperative fluid management in PD, including those as part of a clinical pathway, were considered. The primary outcome was postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Secondary outcomes included delayed gastric emptying (DGE), complication rate, length of stay (LOS), mortality, and readmission.
RESULTS
A total of six studies involving 846 patients were included (2009-2015), of which four were RCTs. Pooled analysis of RCTs and high-quality observational studies found no effect of restrictive intraoperative fluid management on POPF, DGE, complication rate, LOS, mortality, and readmission. Only one study assessed postoperative fluid management exclusively and found prolonged LOS in patients in the restricted fluid group.
CONCLUSION
Based on results of RCTs and high-quality observational studies, intraoperative fluid restriction in PD has not been shown to significantly affect postoperative outcomes. There are too few studies assessing postoperative fluid management to draw conclusions at this time.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Gastric Emptying; Gastroparesis; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Patient Readmission; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29464346
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-018-4545-6 -
Expert Review of Gastroenterology &... Jan 2017The safety of laparoscopic resections (LPS) of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs) has been well established in the literature. Areas covered: Studies conducted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The safety of laparoscopic resections (LPS) of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs) has been well established in the literature. Areas covered: Studies conducted between January 2003 and December 2015 that reported on LPS and open surgery (OPS) were reviewed. The primary outcomes were the rate of post-operative complications and the length of hospital stay (LoS) after laparoscopic and open surgical resection. The rate of recurrence was the secondary outcome. Eleven studies were included with a total of 907 pancreatic resections for PNENs, of whom, 298 (32.8%) underwent LPS and 609 (67.2%) underwent open surgery. LPS resulted in a significantly shorter LoS (p < 0.0001) and lower blood loss (p < 0.0001). The meta-analysis did not show any significant difference in the pancreatic fistula rate, recurrence rate or post-operative mortality between the two groups. Expert commentary: LPS is a safe approach even for PNENs and it is associated with a shorter LoS.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Chi-Square Distribution; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neuroendocrine Tumors; Odds Ratio; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27781493
DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2017.1253473 -
Gland Surgery May 2021Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal tumours in Western society. Pancreatic surgery can be considered a challenge for open and laparoscopic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal tumours in Western society. Pancreatic surgery can be considered a challenge for open and laparoscopic surgeons, even if the accuracy of gland dissection, due to the close relationship between pancreas, the portal vein, and mesenteric vessels, besides the reconstructive phase (in pancreaticoduodenectomy), lead to significant difficulties for laparoscopic technique. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery changed utterly with the development of robotic surgery. However, this review aims to make more clarity on the influence of robotic surgery on long-term morbidity.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify and analyze studies published from November 2011 to September 2020 concerning robotic pancreatic surgery. The following terms were used to perform the search: "long term morbidity robotic pancreatic surgery".
RESULTS
Eighteen articles included in the study were published between November 2011 and September 2020. The review included 2041 patients who underwent robotic pancreatic surgery, mainly for a malignant tumour. The two most common robotic surgical procedures adopted were the robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). In two studies, patients were divided into groups; on the one hand, those who underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), on the other hand, those who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The remaining items included surgical approach such as robotic middle pancreatectomy (RMP), robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic dissection (RALPD), robotic enucleation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.
CONCLUSIONS
Comparison between robotic surgery and open surgery lead to evidence of different advantages of the robotic approach. A multidisciplinary team and a surgical centre at high volume are essential for better postoperative morbidity and mortality.
PubMed: 34164320
DOI: 10.21037/gs-21-64 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Jan 2018Identification of factors associated with dismal survival after surgery in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is important to select patients for neoadjuvant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Identification of factors associated with dismal survival after surgery in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is important to select patients for neoadjuvant treatment. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the results of distal pancreatectomy for resectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic body-tail with and without splenic vessels infiltration.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The inclusion criteria were studies including patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer with or without splenic vessels infiltration. 5-year overall survival (OS) was the primary outcomes. Meta-analysis was carried out applying time-to-event method.
RESULTS
Six articles with 423 patients were analysed. Patients with pathological splenic artery invasion had a worse survival compared with those without infiltration (Hazard ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.36-2.28; P < 0.0001). A similar results was found when considering pathological splenic vessels infiltration, showing that survival was significantly poorer when splenic vein infiltration was present (Hazard ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.19-1.93; P = 0.0009).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis showed worse survival for patients with splenic vessels infiltration undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. Splenic vessels infiltration represents the stigmata of a more aggressive disease, although resectable.
Topics: Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Humans; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Staging; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prognosis; Splenic Artery
PubMed: 29183639
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.10.217 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Nov 2017This study aimed to identify the most effective solution for in situ perfusion/preservation of the pancreas in donation after brain death donors, in addition to optimal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to identify the most effective solution for in situ perfusion/preservation of the pancreas in donation after brain death donors, in addition to optimal in situ flush volume(s) and route(s) during pancreas procurement.
METHODS
Embase, Medline and Cochrane databases were utilized (1980-2017). Articles comparing graft outcomes between two or more different perfusion/preservation fluids (University of Wisconsin (UW), histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate (HTK) and/or Celsior) were compared using random effects models where appropriate.
RESULTS
Thirteen articles were included (939 transplants). Confidence in available evidence was low. A higher serum peak lipase (standardized mean difference 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.71, I = 0) was observed in pancreatic grafts perfused/preserved with HTK compared to UW, but there were no differences in one-month pancreas allograft survivals or early thrombotic graft loss rates. Similarly, there were no significant differences in the rates of graft pancreatitis, thrombosis and graft survival between UW and Celsior solutions, and between aortic-only and dual aorto-portal perfusion.
CONCLUSION
UW cold perfusion may reduce peak serum lipase, but no quality evidence suggested UW cold perfusion improves graft survival and reduces thrombosis rates. Further research is needed to establish longer-term graft outcomes, the comparative efficacy of Celsior, and ideal perfusion volumes.
Topics: Adult; Cold Temperature; Female; Graft Survival; Humans; Male; Organ Preservation; Organ Preservation Solutions; Pancreas Transplantation; Pancreatectomy; Perfusion; Postoperative Complications; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 28844527
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2017.07.012 -
Pancreas Oct 2012Distal pancreatectomies and enucleations have become the most popular laparoscopic pancreatic resections and in some centers outnumber the traditional open approach. The... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Distal pancreatectomies and enucleations have become the most popular laparoscopic pancreatic resections and in some centers outnumber the traditional open approach. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP) in relation to open distal pancreatectomies in the management of adult patients and, where possible, perform a meta-analysis of reported outcomes.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of knowledge, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the following keywords: pancreas, pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy. Publication dates and language restrictions were applied. The Newcastle Ottawa scale was used for study quality assessment.
RESULTS
Four eligible studies were identified with a total of 665 patients. On average, LDPs had a longer operation time by 17.7 minutes (9.5%) and a reduced hospital stay by 2.7 days. Morbidity and mortality were low using both approaches.
CONCLUSIONS
This study represents the strongest evidence (level 3a) to date that LDPs are a safe operation. However, there is still a need for randomized controlled trials to confirm this.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; MEDLINE; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Reproducibility of Results; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 22836858
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e31824f3669 -
Journal of Investigative Surgery : the... Dec 2023Our objective is to compare the early outcomes associated with passive (gravity) drainage (PG) and active drainage (AD) after surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Our objective is to compare the early outcomes associated with passive (gravity) drainage (PG) and active drainage (AD) after surgery.
METHODS
Studies published until April 28, 2022 were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Web of Science databases.
RESULTS
Nine studies with 14,169 patients were identified. Two groups had the same intra-abdominal infection rate (RR: 0.55; = 0.13); In subgroup analysis of pancreaticoduodenectomy, active drainage had no significant effect on postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate (RR: 1.21; = 0.26) and clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) (RR: 1.05; = 0.72); Active drainage was not associated with lower percutaneous drainage rate (RR: 1.00; = 0.96), incidence of sepsis (RR: 1.00; = 0.99) and overall morbidity (RR: 1.02; = 0.73). Both groups had the same POPF rate (RR: 1.20; = 0.18) and CR-POPF rate (RR: 1.20; = 0.18) after distal pancreatectomy. There was no difference between two groups on the day of drain removal after pancreaticoduodenectomy (Mean difference: -0.16; = 0.81) and liver surgery (Mean difference: 0.03; = 0.99).
CONCLUSIONS
Active drainage is not superior to passive drainage and both drainage methods can be considered.
Topics: Humans; Abdomen; Pancreas; Drainage; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Complications; Pancreaticoduodenectomy
PubMed: 37733388
DOI: 10.1080/08941939.2023.2180115 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2010Pancreatic cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer death in higher-income countries, with 5-year survival only 10% even in people presenting with early-stage... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer death in higher-income countries, with 5-year survival only 10% even in people presenting with early-stage cancer. Risk factors include smoking, high alcohol intake, and dietary factors, while diabetes mellitus and previous pancreatitis may also increase the risk.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of surgical treatments in people with pancreatic cancer considered suitable for complete tumour resection? What are the effects of interventions to prevent pancreatic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy in people with pancreatic cancer considered suitable for complete tumour resection? What are the effects of adjuvant treatments in people with completely resected pancreatic cancer? What are the effects of interventions in people with non-resectable (locally advanced or advanced) pancreatic cancer? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2009 (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 46 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: chemoradiotherapy; chemoradiotherapy for non-resectable pancreatic cancer; chemoradiotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer; fibrin glue; fluorouracil-based chemotherapy (adjuvant) for resected pancreatic cancer (with or without surgery); fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for non-resectable pancreatic cancer; fluorouracil-based chemotherapy (systemic); fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy; fluorouracil-based monotherapy for non-resectable pancreatic cancer; gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (adjuvant) for resected pancreatic cancer; gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (systemic); gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy; gemcitabine-based monotherapy for non-resectable pancreatic cancer; lymphadenectomy (extended [radical], or standard) in people having pancreaticoduodenectomy; pancreatic duct occlusion; pancreaticoduodenectomy (pylorus-preserving); pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple's procedure); pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction; pancreaticojejunostomy; and somatostatin and somatostatin analogues.
Topics: Fluorouracil; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pylorus
PubMed: 21729338
DOI: No ID Found -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Oct 2018The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of central pancreatectomy (CP) with distal pancreatectomy (DP) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of central pancreatectomy (CP) with distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).
METHODS
A systematic literature research in PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library was performed to identify articles reporting CP from January 1983 to November 2017.
RESULTS
Fifty studies with 1305 patients undergoing CP were identified. The overall morbidity, mortality, pancreatic fistula (PF) rate and reoperation rate was 51%, 0.5%, 35% and 4% respectively. Endocrine and exocrine insufficiency were occurred in 4% and 5% of patients after CP. Meta-analysis of CP versus DP favored CP with regard to less blood loss (WMD = -143.4, P = 0.001), lower rates of endocrine (OR = 0.13, P < 0.001) and exocrine insufficiency (OR = 0.38, P < 0.001). CP was associated with higher morbidity and PF rate. In comparison with PD, CP had a lower risk of endocrine (OR = 0.14, P < 0.001) and exocrine insufficiency (OR = 0.14, P < 0.001), but a higher PF rate (OR = 1.6, P = 0.015).
CONCLUSIONS
CP maintains pancreatic endocrine and exocrine function better than DP and PD, but is associated with a higher PF rate.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29886106
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2018.05.001 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Apr 2015Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was proposed as an oncologically safe approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was proposed as an oncologically safe approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
METHODS
A systematic review of the studies comparing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy was conducted. The primary endpoint was an R0 resection rate. The secondary endpoints were intra- and postoperative results, tumour size, mean harvested lymph node, number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy and overall survival.
RESULTS
Five comparative case control studies involving 261 patients (30.7% laparoscopic and 69.3% open) who underwent a distal pancreatectomy were included. The R0 resection rate was similar between the two groups (P = 0.53). The laparoscopic group had longer operative times (P = 0.04), lesser blood loss (P = 0.01), a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001) and smaller tumour size (P = 0.04) as compared with the laparotomic group. Overall morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, reoperation, mortality and number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy were similar. The mean harvested lymph nodes were comparable in the two groups (P = 0.33). The laparoscopic approach did not affect the overall survival rate (P = 0.32).
CONCLUSION
Even if the number of patients compared is underpowered, the laparoscopic approach in the treatment of PDAC seems to be safe and efficacious. However, additional prospective, randomised, multicentric trials are needed to correctly evaluate the laparoscopic approach in PDAC.
Topics: Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 25560180
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-014-2721-z