-
Surgical Endoscopy Jun 2020Although several non-randomized studies comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) recently demonstrated that the two... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with benign and malignant periampullary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes.
BACKGROUND
Although several non-randomized studies comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) recently demonstrated that the two operative techniques could be equivalent in terms of safety outcomes and short-term oncologic efficacy, no definitive answer has arrived yet to the question as to whether robotic assistance can contribute to reducing the high rate of postoperative morbidity.
METHODS
Systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases. Prospective and retrospective studies comparing RPD and OPD as surgical treatment for periampullary benign and malignant lesions were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis with no limits of language or year of publication.
RESULTS
18 non-randomized studies were included for quantitative synthesis with 13,639 patients allocated to RPD (n = 1593) or OPD (n = 12,046). RPD and OPD showed equivalent results in terms of mortality (3.3% vs 2.8%; P = 0.84), morbidity (64.4% vs 68.1%; P = 0.12), pancreatic fistula (17.9% vs 15.9%; P = 0.81), delayed gastric emptying (16.8% vs 16.1%; P = 0.98), hemorrhage (11% vs 14.6%; P = 0.43), and bile leak (5.1% vs 3.5%; P = 0.35). Estimated intra-operative blood loss was significantly lower in the RPD group (352.1 ± 174.1 vs 588.4 ± 219.4; P = 0.0003), whereas operative time was significantly longer for RPD compared to OPD (461.1 ± 84 vs 384.2 ± 73.8; P = 0.0004). RPD and OPD showed equivalent results in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (19.1 ± 9.9 vs 17.3 ± 9.9; P = 0.22) and positive margin status (13.3% vs 16.1%; P = 0.32).
CONCLUSIONS
RPD is safe and feasible as surgical treatment for malignant or benign disease of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region. Equivalency in terms of surgical radicality including R0 curative resection and number of harvested lymph nodes between the two groups confirmed the reliability of RPD from an oncologic point of view.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Humans; Operative Time; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 32072286
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07460-4 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Nov 2020A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to estimate the incidence of possible complications following EUS-guided pancreas biopsy. Pancreatic cancer has a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to estimate the incidence of possible complications following EUS-guided pancreas biopsy. Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis with a high fatality rate. Early diagnosis is important to improve the prognosis of pancreatic cancer. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for studies published from inception to Augest, 2018. Meta-analysis were conducted with random-effect models and heterogeneity was calculated with the Q, I and τ statistics. We enrolled 78 studies from 71 articles in the meta-analysis, comprising 11,652 patients. Pooled data showed that the whole complication incidences were low 0.210 × 10(95%CI -0.648 × 10, 1.068 × 10). And they were in bleeding 0.002 × 10 (95%CI -0.092 × 10, 0.097 × 10), pancreatitis 0.002 (95%CI -0.082 × 10, 0.086 × 10), abdominal pain 0 (95%CI -0.037 × 10, 0.038 × 10), fever 0 (95%CI -0.032 × 10, 0. 032 × 10), infection 0 (95%CI -0.030 × 10, 0.031 × 10), duodenal perforation 0 (95%CI -0.033 × 10, 0.034 × 10), pancreatic fistula 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10, 0.029 × 10), abscess 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10, 0.029 × 10) and sepsis 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10, 0.030 × 10). Subgroup analysis based on the tumor size, site, needle type and tumor style also showed robust results. The pooled data showed EUS-guided pancreas biopsy could be a safe approach for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. More large-scale studies will be necessary to confirm the findings across different population.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Cohort Studies; Duodenum; Early Detection of Cancer; Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration; Hemorrhage; Incidence; Intestinal Perforation; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreatitis; Safety
PubMed: 31974051
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2019.12.011 -
BMC Surgery Oct 2019Following publication of the original article [1], the authors have notified us that due to administrative reasons they would like to modify the first affiliation from.
Following publication of the original article [1], the authors have notified us that due to administrative reasons they would like to modify the first affiliation from.
PubMed: 31651298
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-019-0626-1 -
BMC Surgery May 2019Duodenal stump fistula (DSF) remains one of the most serious complications following subtotal or total gastrectomy, as it endangers patient's life. DSF is related to...
BACKGROUND
Duodenal stump fistula (DSF) remains one of the most serious complications following subtotal or total gastrectomy, as it endangers patient's life. DSF is related to high mortality (16-20%) and morbidity (75%) rates. DSF-related morbidity always leads to longer hospitalization times due to medical and surgical complications such as wound infections, intra-abdominal abscesses, intra-abdominal bleeding, acute pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, severe malnutrition, fluids and electrolytes disorders, diffuse peritonitis, and pneumonia. Our systematic review aimed at improving our understanding of such surgical complication, focusing on nonsurgical and surgical DSF management in patients undergoing gastric resection for gastric cancer.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were used to search all related literature.
RESULTS
The 20 included articles covered an approximately 40 years-study period (1979-2017), with a total 294 patient population. DSF diagnosis occurred between the fifth and tenth postoperative day. Main DSF-related complications were sepsis, abdominal abscess, wound infection, pneumonia, and intra-abdominal bleeding. DSF treatment was divided into four categories: conservative (101 cases), endoscopic (4 cases), percutaneous (82 cases), and surgical (157 cases). Length of hospitalization was 21-39 days, ranging from 1 to 1035 days. Healing time was 19-63 days, ranging from 1 to 1035 days. DSF-related mortality rate recorded 18.7%.
CONCLUSIONS
DSF is a rare but potentially lethal complication after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Early DSF diagnosis is crucial in reducing DSF-related morbidity and mortality. Conservative and/or endoscopic/percutaneous treatments is/are the first choice. However, if the patient clinical condition worsens, surgery becomes mandatory and duodenostomy appears to be the most effective surgical procedure.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Duodenal Diseases; Gastrectomy; Humans; Intestinal Fistula; Peritonitis; Postoperative Complications; Stomach Neoplasms; Wound Healing
PubMed: 31138190
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-019-0520-x -
BMC Gastroenterology Jul 2018Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare LPD with OPD for these malignancies regarding short-term surgical and long-term survival outcomes.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted before March 2018 to identify comparative studies in regard to outcomes of both LPD and OPD for the treatment of pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancies. Morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), mortality, operative time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization, retrieved lymph nodes, and survival outcomes were compared.
RESULTS
Among eleven identified studies, 1196 underwent LPD, and 8247 were operated through OPD. The pooled data showed that LPD was associated with less morbidity (OR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.41~ 0.78, P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD = - 372.96 ml, 95% CI, - 507.83~ - 238.09 ml, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stays (WMD = - 197.49 ml, 95% CI, - 304.62~ - 90.37 ml, P < 0.01), and comparable POPF (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.59~ 1.24, P = 0.40), and overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.93~ 1.14, P = 0.54) compared to OPD. Operative time was longer in LPD (WMD = 87.68 min; 95%CI: 27.05~ 148.32, P < 0.01), whereas R0 rate tended to be higher in LPD (OR = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.00~ 1.37, P = 0.05) and there tended to be more retrieved lymph nodes in LPD (WMD = 1.15, 95%CI: -0.16~ 2.47, P = 0.08), but these differences failed to reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS
LPD can be performed as safe and effective as OPD for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy with respect to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LPD is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity and may serve as a promising alternative to OPD in selected individuals in the future.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Lymphatic Metastasis; Operative Time; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 29969999
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-018-0830-y -
Journal of Vascular and Interventional... May 2018To compare postoperative complications in patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy after either endoscopic or percutaneous biliary drain (BD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Is Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage Better than Endoscopic Drainage in the Management of Jaundiced Patients Awaiting Pancreaticoduodenectomy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
To compare postoperative complications in patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy after either endoscopic or percutaneous biliary drain (BD).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Data from studies comparing the rate of postoperative complications in patients who underwent endoscopic BD or percutaneous BD before pancreatoduodenectomy were extracted independently by 2 investigators. The primary outcome compared in the meta-analysis was the risk of postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes were the risks of procedure-related complications, postoperative mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula, severe complications, and wound infection. For dichotomous variables, the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies, including 2334 patients (501 in the percutaneous BD group and 1833 in the endoscopic group), met the inclusion criteria. Postoperative and procedure-related complication rates were significantly lower in the percutaneous BD group (OR = .7, 95% CI = .52-.94, P = .02 and OR = .44, 95% CI = .23-.84, P = .01, respectively). No significant differences were observed when severe postoperative complications, postoperative mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula, and wound infection rates were compared.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients awaiting pancreatoduodenectomy, preoperative percutaneous BD is associated with fewer procedure-related or postoperative complications than endoscopic drain.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Cholangiocarcinoma; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Drainage; Duodenal Neoplasms; Endoscopy; Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 29548873
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.12.027 -
BMC Gastroenterology Nov 2017Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear.
METHODS
Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = -0.54 ml; 95% CI, -0.88 ~ -0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = -3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ -2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes.
CONCLUSION
Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Common Bile Duct Diseases; Humans; Length of Stay; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Operative Time; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 29169337
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-017-0691-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Pancreatoduodenectomy is a surgical procedure used to treat diseases of the pancreatic head and, less often, the duodenum. The most common disease treated is cancer, but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatoduodenectomy is a surgical procedure used to treat diseases of the pancreatic head and, less often, the duodenum. The most common disease treated is cancer, but pancreatoduodenectomy is also used for people with traumatic lesions and chronic pancreatitis. Following pancreatoduodenectomy, the pancreatic stump must be connected with the small bowel where pancreatic juice can play its role in food digestion. Pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) and pancreatogastrostomy (PG) are surgical procedures commonly used to reconstruct the pancreatic stump after pancreatoduodenectomy. Both of these procedures have a non-negligible rate of postoperative complications. Since it is unclear which procedure is better, there are currently no international guidelines on how to reconstruct the pancreatic stump after pancreatoduodenectomy, and the choice is based on the surgeon's personal preference.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pancreaticogastrostomy compared to pancreaticojejunostomy on postoperative pancreatic fistula in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 30 September 2016), Ovid Embase (1974 to 30 September 2016) and CINAHL (1982 to 30 September 2016). We also searched clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) and screened references of eligible articles and systematic reviews on this subject. There were no language or publication date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the clinical outcomes of PJ compared to PG in people undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed descriptive analyses of the included RCTs for the primary (rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula and mortality) and secondary outcomes (length of hospital stay, rate of surgical re-intervention, overall rate of surgical complications, rate of postoperative bleeding, rate of intra-abdominal abscess, quality of life, cost analysis). We used a random-effects model for all analyses. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (using PG as the reference) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as a measure of variability.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs that enrolled a total of 1629 participants. The characteristics of all studies matched the requirements to compare the two types of surgical reconstruction following pancreatoduodenectomy. All studies reported incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (the main complication) and postoperative mortality.Overall, the risk of bias in included studies was high; only one included study was assessed at low risk of bias.There was little or no difference between PJ and PG in overall risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (PJ 24.3%; PG 21.4%; RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.62; 7 studies; low-quality evidence). Inclusion of studies that clearly distinguished clinically significant pancreatic fistula resulted in us being uncertain whether PJ improved the risk of pancreatic fistula when compared with PG (19.3% versus 12.8%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.47; very low-quality evidence). PJ probably has little or no difference from PG in risk of postoperative mortality (3.9% versus 4.8%; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34; moderate-quality evidence).We found low-quality evidence that PJ may differ little from PG in length of hospital stay (MD 1.04 days, 95% CI -1.18 to 3.27; 4 studies, N = 502) or risk of surgical re-intervention (11.6% versus 10.3%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61; 7 studies, N = 1263). We found moderate-quality evidence suggesting little difference between PJ and PG in terms of risk of any surgical complication (46.5% versus 44.5%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18; 9 studies, N = 1513). PJ may slightly improve the risk of postoperative bleeding (9.3% versus 13.8%; RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.93; low-quality evidence; 8 studies, N = 1386), but may slightly worsen the risk of developing intra-abdominal abscess (14.7% versus 8.0%; RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.81; 7 studies, N = 1121; low quality evidence). Only one study reported quality of life (N = 320); PG may improve some quality of life parameters over PJ (low-quality evidence). No studies reported cost analysis data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no reliable evidence to support the use of pancreatojejunostomy over pancreatogastrostomy. Future large international studies may shed new light on this field of investigation.
Topics: Gastrostomy; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28898386
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012257.pub2 -
Angiology May 2018To confirm the advantage of in situ reconstruction (ISR) over extra-anatomic reconstruction (EAR) for aortic graft infection and determine the most appropriate conduit... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To confirm the advantage of in situ reconstruction (ISR) over extra-anatomic reconstruction (EAR) for aortic graft infection and determine the most appropriate conduit including autogenous veins, cryopreserved allografts, and synthetic prosthesis (standard, rifampicin of silver polyesters).
METHODS
A meta-analysis was conducted with rate of mortality, graft occlusion, amputation, and reinfection. A meta-regression was performed with 4 factors: patients' age, presence of prosthetic-duodenal fistula (PDF), virulent organisms, or nonvirulent organisms.
RESULTS
In situ reconstruction over EAR seems to favor all events. For the 5 conduits used for ISR, according to operative mortality, age of the patients looks to have a positive correlation only for silver polyester and no conduit present any advantage in the presence of PDF. Reinfection seems to be not significantly different for the 5 conduits, and only autogenous veins appear to have a positive correlation with infecting organisms.
CONCLUSION
In situ reconstruction may be considered as first-line treatment. Our results suggest that silver polyesters appear to be most appropriate for older patients, and in order to limit reinfection, autogenous veins are probably the most suitable conduit.
Topics: Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Prosthesis Design; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Reoperation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28578619
DOI: 10.1177/0003319717710114 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... 2017Currently, both the step-up approach, combining percutaneous drainage (PD) and video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement (VARD), and endoscopic transgastric... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Currently, both the step-up approach, combining percutaneous drainage (PD) and video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement (VARD), and endoscopic transgastric necrosectomy (ETN) are mini-invasive techniques for infected necrosis in severe acute pancreatitis. A combination of these approaches could maximize the management of necrotizing pancreatitis, conjugating the benefits from both the experiences. However, reporting of this combined strategy is anecdotal. This is the first reported case of severe necrotizing pancreatitis complicated by biliary fistula treated by a combination of ETN, PD, VARD, and endoscopic biliary stenting. Moreover, a systematic literature review of comparative studies on minimally invasive techniques in necrotizing pancreatitis has been provided.
CASE PRESENTATION
A 59-year-old patient was referred to our center for acute necrotizing pancreatitis associated with multi-organ failure. No invasive procedures were attempted in the first month from the onset: enteral feeding by a naso-duodenal tube was started, and antibiotics were administered to control sepsis. After 4 weeks, CT scans showed a central walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) of pancreatic head communicating bilateral retroperitoneal collections. ETN was performed, and bile leakage was found at the right margin of the WOPN. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography confirmed the presence of a choledocal fistula within the WOPN, and a biliary stent was placed. An ultrasound-guided PD was performed on the left retroperitoneal collection. Due to the subsequent repeated onset of septic shocks and the evidence of size increase of the right retroperitoneal collection, a VARD was decided. The CT scans documented the resolution of all the collections, and the patient promptly recovered from sepsis. After 6 months, the patient is in good clinical condition.
CONCLUSIONS
No mini-invasive technique has demonstrated significantly better outcomes over the others, and each technique has specific indications, advantages, and pitfalls. Indeed, ETN could be suitable for central WOPNs, while VARD or PD could be suggested for lateral collections. A combination of different approaches is feasible and could significantly optimize the clinical management in critically ill patients affected by complicated necrotizing pancreatitis.
Topics: Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Debridement; Drainage; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Multiple Organ Failure; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Ultrasonography; Video-Assisted Surgery
PubMed: 28331537
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-017-0126-5