-
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Dec 2020Drains' role after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is debated by proponents of no drain, draining selected cases, and early drain removal. The aim of the study was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical drain management after the diagnosis of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: draining-tract-targeted works better than standard management.
PURPOSE
Drains' role after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is debated by proponents of no drain, draining selected cases, and early drain removal. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of "standard" and "draining-tract-targeted" management of abdominal drains still in situ after diagnosing a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).
METHODS
PubMed and Scopus were searched for "pancreaticoduodenectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy or duodenopancreatectomy," "Whipple," "proximal pancreatectomy," "pylorus-preserving pancreatectomy," and "postoperative pancreatic fistula or POPF.". Main outcomes included clinically relevant (CR) POPF, grade-C POPF, overall mortality, POPF-related mortality, and CR-POPF-related mortality. Secondary outcomes were incidence of radiological and/or endoscopic interventions, reoperations, and completion pancreatectomies.
RESULTS
Overall, 12,089 studies were retrieved by the search of the English literature (01/01/1990-31/12/2018). Three hundred and twenty-six studies (90,321 patients) reporting ≥ 100 PDs and ≥ 10 PD/year were finally included into the study. Average incidences were obtained by averaging the incidence rates reported in the single articles. Pooled incidences were calculated by combining the number of events and the total number of patients considered in the various studies. These were then meta-analyzed using DerSimonian and Laird's (1986) method. Pearson's chi-squared test was used to compare pooled incidences between groups. Post hoc testing was used to see which groups differed. The meta-analyzed incidences were compared using a fixed effect for moderators. "Draining-tract-targeted" management showed a significant advantage over "standard" management in four clinically relevant outcomes out of eight according to pool analysis and in one of them according to meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
Clinically, "draining-targeted" management of POPF should be preferred to "standard" management.
Topics: Drainage; Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 33104886
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-020-02005-8 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Jul 2020Due to better functional outcomes, pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) has been widely applied for early gastric cancer (EGC) patients as an alternative to distal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Due to better functional outcomes, pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) has been widely applied for early gastric cancer (EGC) patients as an alternative to distal gastrectomy (DG). However, controversies still persist regarding the surgical efficacy and oncological safety of PPG.
METHODS
Original studies comparing PPG and DG for EGC were searched in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to December 2019. The weight mean difference, standardized mean difference, or odds risk was used to calculate the short-term and long-term outcomes between the two groups.
RESULTS
Twenty-one comparative studies comprising 4871 patients (1955 in the PPG group and 2916 in the DG group) were enrolled in this systematic review and meta-analysis. PPG showed longer hospital day, decreased harvested lymph nodes, and more delayed gastric emptying. However, PPG had the benefits of lower incidence of anastomosis leakage, early dumping syndrome, gastritis and bile reflux, and better recovery of total protein, albumin, hemoglobin, and weight. No difference was found in operative time, blood loss, and overall complications. Moreover, the long-term survival and recurrence rate were similar in two groups.
CONCLUSION
Owing to the non-inferiority of surgery and oncology outcomes and the superiority of function outcomes in PPG, we revealed that PPG can be clinically applicable instead of DG in EGC. However, more high-quality comparative studies and randomized clinical trials would be required for further confirmation.
Topics: Gastrectomy; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Prognosis; Pylorus; Stomach Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32641052
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-020-01910-y -
Medicine Aug 2019The aim of present study is to investigate the relationship between the antecolic (AC) route of gastrojejunostomy (GJ) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Antecolic reconstruction is associated with a lower incidence of delayed gastric emptying compared to retrocolic technique after Whipple or pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy.
BACKGROUND
The aim of present study is to investigate the relationship between the antecolic (AC) route of gastrojejunostomy (GJ) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or duodenojejunostomy (DJ) reconstruction after pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD), and the incidence of delayed gastric emptying (DGE).
METHODS
An electronic search of 4 databases to identify all articles comparing AC and retrocolic (RC) reconstruction after PD or PPPD was performed.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies involving 2270 patients were included for final pooled analysis. The overall incidence of DGE was 27.2%. Meta-analysis results showed AC group had lower incidence of DGE (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.52, P < .0001) and shorter hospital length of stay (weight mean difference, -3.29; 95% CI, -5.2 to -1.39, P = .0007). Days until to liquid and solid diet in the AC group were also significantly earlier than that in the RC group (P = .0006 and P < .0001). There was no difference in operative time, incidence of pancreatic fistula and bile leakage, and mortality, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
AC route of GJ after PD or DJ after PPPD is associated with a lower incidence of DGE. However, the preferred route for GJ or DJ reconstruction remains to be investigated in well-powered, randomized, controlled trial.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Gastric Bypass; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Operative Time; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Plastic Surgery Procedures
PubMed: 31441841
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016663 -
Cureus May 2019Seed bezoars are a distinct subcategory of phytobezoars, caused by indigestible vegetable or fruit seeds. The aim of our study was to present a comprehensive review on... (Review)
Review
Seed bezoars are a distinct subcategory of phytobezoars, caused by indigestible vegetable or fruit seeds. The aim of our study was to present a comprehensive review on seed bezoars, focusing on epidemiology, symptomatology, diagnosis and treatment options. A systematic review of the English literature (1980-2018) was conducted, using PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases. Fifty-two studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with a total of 153 patients, the majority of whom (72%) came from countries around the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. Patients complained primarily about constipation (63%), abdominal/rectal pain (19%) or intestinal obstruction (17%). Most seed bezoars were found in the rectum (78%) and the terminal ileum (16%). Risk factors were recognised in 12% of cases. Manual disimpaction under general anaesthesia was the procedure of choice in 69%, while surgery was required in 22% of cases. Seed bezoars appear to represent a different pathophysiological process compared to fibre bezoars. Seeds usually pass through the pylorus and ileocaecal valve, due to their small size, and accumulate gradually in the colon. Seed bezoars are usually found in the rectum of patients without predisposing factors, causing constipation and pain. History and digital rectal examination are the mainstay of diagnosis, with manual extraction under general anaesthesia being the procedure of choice.
PubMed: 31333915
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.4686 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jan 2020Staple-line leaks following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) remain a concerning complication. Staple-line buttressing is largely adopted as an acceptable... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Staple-line leaks following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) remain a concerning complication. Staple-line buttressing is largely adopted as an acceptable reinforcement but data regarding leaks have been equivocal. This study compared staple-line leaks in five reinforcement options during LSG: no reinforcement (NO-SLR), oversewing (suture), nonabsorbable bovine pericardial strips (BPS), tissue sealant or fibrin glue (Seal), or absorbable polymer membrane (APM).
METHODS
This systematic review study of articles published between 2012 and 2016 regarding LSG leak rates aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Variables of interest included leak rates, bleeding, and complications in addition to surgical and population parameters. An independent Fisher's exact test was used to compare the number of patients with and without leaks for the different reinforcement options.
RESULTS
Of the 1633 articles identified, 148 met inclusion criteria and represented 40,653 patients. Differences in age (older in APM; p = 0.001), starting body mass index (lower in Suture; p = 0.008), and distance from pylorus (closer in BPS; p = 0.04) were observed between groups, but mean bougie size was equivalent. The overall leak rate of 1.5% (607 leaks) ranged from 0.7% for APM (significantly lower than all groups; p ≤ 0.007 for next lowest leak rate) to 2.7% (BPS).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review of staple-line leaks following LSG demonstrated a significantly lower rate using APM staple-line reinforcement as compared to oversewing, use of sealants, BPS reinforcement, or no reinforcement. Variation in surgical technique may also contribute to leak rates.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Anastomotic Leak; Gastrectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Risk Factors; Surgical Stapling
PubMed: 30993513
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-06782-2 -
Surgery For Obesity and Related... Jun 2018Although laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is an established operation for severe obesity, there is controversy regarding the extent to which the antrum is excised. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Although laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is an established operation for severe obesity, there is controversy regarding the extent to which the antrum is excised. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the effect on perioperative complications and medium-term outcomes of antral resecting versus antral preserving sleeve gastrectomy. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1946 to April 2017. Eligible studies compared antral resection (staple line commencing 2-3 cm from pylorus) with antral preservation (>5 cm from pylorus) in patients undergoing primary sleeve gastrectomy for obesity. Meta-analyses were performed with a random-effects model, and risk of bias within and across studies was assessed using validated scoring systems. Eight studies (619 participants) were included: 6 randomized controlled trials and 2 cohort studies. Overall follow-up was 94% for the specified outcomes of each study. Mean percentage excess weight loss was 62% at 12 months (7 studies; 574 patients) and 67% at 24 months (4 studies; 412 patients). Antral resection was associated with significant improvement in percentage excess weight loss at 24-month follow-up (mean 70% versus 61%; standardized mean difference .95; confidence interval .35-1.58, P<.005), an effect that remained significant when cohort studies were excluded. There was no difference in incidence of perioperative bleeding, leak, or de novo gastroesophageal reflux disease. According to the available evidence, antral resection is associated with better medium-term weight loss compared with antral preservation, without increased risk of surgical complications. Further randomized clinical trials are indicated to confirm this finding.
Topics: Anastomotic Leak; Bariatric Surgery; Gastrectomy; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Laparoscopy; Obesity, Morbid; Organ Sparing Treatments; Postoperative Complications; Pyloric Antrum; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Weight Loss
PubMed: 29602713
DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2018.02.021 -
Medicine Mar 2017Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a common and frequently occurring disease. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD), and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a common and frequently occurring disease. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD), and duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) are important treatment options for patients with chronic pancreatitis. The Beger and Frey procedures are 2 main duodenum-preserving techniques in duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) strategies. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy of DPPHR versus PD, the Beger procedure versus PD, the Frey procedure versus PD, and the Beger procedure versus the Frey procedure in the treatment of pancreatitis. The optimal surgical option for chronic pancreatitis is still under debate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of different surgical strategies for chronic pancreatitis.
METHODS
Five databases (PubMed, Medline, SinoMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched with the limitations of human subjects and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) text. Data were extracted by 2 of the coauthors independently and analyzed using the RevMan statistical software, version 5.3. Weighted mean differences (WMDs), risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Seven studies involving a total of 385 patients who underwent the surgical treatments were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from low to moderate and included PD (n = 134) and DPPHR (n = 251 [Beger procedure = 100; Frey procedure = 109; Beger or Frey procedure = 42]). There were no significant differences between DPPHR and PD in post-operation mortality (RR = 2.89, 95% CI = 0.31-26.87, P = 0.36), pain relief (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.94-1.25, P = 0.26), exocrine insufficiency (follow-up time > 60 months: RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.72-1.15, P = 0.41), and endocrine insufficiency (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.52-1.08, P = 0.12). Concerning the follow-up time < 60 months, the DPPHR group had better results of exocrine insufficiency (RR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.08-0.62, P = 0.04). However, operation time (P < 0.0001), blood transfusion (P = 0.02), hospital stay (P = 0.0002), postoperation morbidity (P = 0.0007), weight gain (P < 0.00001), quality of life (P = 0.01), and occupational rehabilitation (P = 0.007) were significantly better for patients who underwent the DPPHR procedure compared with the PD procedure. The comparison results of the Frey procedure and PD showed that both procedures had an equal effect in the pain relief, postoperation mortality, exocrine and endocrine function, and quality of life (QoL) (P > 0.05), whereas patients who underwent the Frey procedure had significantly reduced operative times (P < 0.05) and less blood transfusions (P < 0.05). Comparing the Beger procedure to the PD procedure, there were no significant differences in hospital stay, blood transfusion, postoperation morbidity or mortality, pain relief, weight gain, exocrine insufficiency, and occupational rehabilitation (P > 0.05). Two studies comparing the Beger and Frey procedures showed no differences in postoperative morbidity, pain relief, exocrine insufficiency, and quality of life (P > 0.05). In terms of operative time, blood transfusion, hospital stay, postoperation morbidity, weight gain, quality of life, and occupational rehabilitation, the results also favored duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) strategies.
CONCLUSION
All procedures are equally effective for the management of pain, postoperation morbidity, exocrine insufficiency, and endocrine insufficiency for chronic pancreatitis. Improved short- and long-term outcomes, including operative time, blood transfusion, hospital stay, quality of life, weight gain, and occupational rehabilitation make DPPHR a more favorable surgical strategy for patients with chronic pancreatitis. Further, relevant trails are eager to prove these findings.
Topics: Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Humans; Pancreatitis, Chronic
PubMed: 28248878
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006220 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, postoperative mortality, complications, and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011, 9 January 2014, and 18 August 2015 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases on 18 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE (1946 to August 2015); and EMBASE (1980 to August 2015). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010); we did not update this part of the search for the 2014 and 2015 updates because the prior searches did not contribute any additional information. We identified two additional trials through the updated search in 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing CW versus PPW including participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs), and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included trials according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with a total of 512 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. Postoperative mortality (OR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.54; P = 0.32), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P = 0.29), and morbidity showed no significant differences, except of delayed gastric emptying, which significantly favoured CW (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.05 to 8.70; P = 0.04). Furthermore, we noted that operating time (MD -45.22 minutes, 95% CI -74.67 to -15.78; P = 0.003), intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.32 L, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.03; P = 0.03), and red blood cell transfusion (MD -0.47 units, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.07; P = 0.02) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results were associated with low-quality evidence based on GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests no relevant differences in mortality, morbidity, and survival between the two operations. However, some perioperative outcome measures significantly favour the PPW procedure. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future high-quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions based on well-defined outcome parameters are required.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Female; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Male; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pylorus; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26905229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Surgical excision by removal of the head of the pancreas to decompress the obstructed ducts is one of the treatment options for people with symptomatic chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical excision by removal of the head of the pancreas to decompress the obstructed ducts is one of the treatment options for people with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis. Surgical excision of the head of the pancreas can be performed by excision of the duodenum along with the head of the pancreas (pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD)) or without excision of the duodenum (duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR)). There is currently no consensus on the method of pancreatic head resection in people with chronic pancreatitis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection versus pancreaticoduodenectomy in people with chronic pancreatitis for whom pancreatic resection is considered the main treatment option.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to June 2015 to identify randomised trials. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCT) performed in people with chronic pancreatitis undergoing pancreatic head resection, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), rate ratio (RaR), or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an available-case analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials including 292 participants met the inclusion criteria for the review. After exclusion of 23 participants mainly due to pancreatic cancer or because participants did not receive the planned treatment, a total of 269 participants (with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis involving the head of pancreas and requiring surgery) were randomly assigned to receive DPPHR (135 participants) or PD (134 participants). The trials did not report the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status of the participants. All the trials were single-centre trials and included people with and without obstructive jaundice and people with and without duodenal stenosis but did not report data separately for those with and without jaundice or those with and without duodenal stenosis. The surgical procedures compared in the five trials included DPPHR (Beger or Frey procedures, or wide local excision of the head of the pancreas) and PD (pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy or Whipple procedure). The participants were followed up for various periods of time ranging from one to 15 years. The trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low.The differences in short-term mortality (up to 90 days after surgery) (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.31 to 26.87; 369 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 2/135 (1.5%) versus PD: 0/134 (0%); very low quality evidence) or long-term mortality (maximal follow-up) (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.34; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), medium-term (three months to five years) (only a narrative summary was possible; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), or long-term quality of life (more than five years) (MD 8.45, 95% CI -0.27 to 17.18; 101 participants; 2 studies; low quality evidence), proportion of people with adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.35; 226 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 23/113 (adjusted proportion 20%) versus PD: 41/113 (36.3%); very low quality evidence), number of people with adverse events (RaR 0.95, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.12; 43 participants; 1 study; DPPHR: 12/22 (54.3 events per 100 participants) versus PD: 12/21 (57.1 events per 100 participants); very low quality evidence), proportion of people employed (maximal follow-up) (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.37; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 65/98 (adjusted proportion 69.4%) versus PD: 41/91 (45.1%); low quality evidence), incidence proportion of diabetes mellitus (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.22; 269 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 25/135 (adjusted proportion 18.6%) versus PD: 32/134 (23.9%); very low quality evidence), and prevalence proportion of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 62/98 (adjusted proportion 62.0%) versus PD: 68/91 (74.7%); very low quality evidence) were imprecise. The length of hospital stay appeared to be lower with DPPHR compared to PD and ranged between a reduction of one day and five days in the trials (208 participants; 4 studies; low quality evidence). None of the trials reported short-term quality of life (four weeks to three months), clinically significant pancreatic fistulas, serious adverse events, time to return to normal activity, time to return to work, and pain scores using a visual analogue scale.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low quality evidence suggested that DPPHR may result in shorter hospital stay than PD. Based on low or very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence of any difference in the mortality, adverse events, or quality of life between DPPHR and PD. However, the results were imprecise and further RCTs are required on this topic. Future RCTs comparing DPPHR with PD should report the severity as well as the incidence of postoperative complications and their impact on patient recovery. In such trials, participant and observer blinding should be performed and the analysis should be performed on an intention-to-treat basis to decrease the bias. In addition to the short-term benefits and harms such as mortality, surgery-related complications, quality of life, length of hospital stay, return to normal activity, and return to work, future trials should consider linkage of trial participants to health databases, social databases, and mortality registers to obtain the long-term benefits and harms of the different treatments.
Topics: Duodenum; Humans; Length of Stay; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26837472
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011521.pub2 -
Digestive Surgery 2016One of the most frequent complications of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is delayed gastric emptying (DGE). The study aim was to evaluate the impact of the type of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Effect of Antecolic versus Retrocolic Gastroenteric Reconstruction after Pancreaticoduodenectomy on Delayed Gastric Emptying: A Meta-Analysis of Six Randomized Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND
One of the most frequent complications of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is delayed gastric emptying (DGE). The study aim was to evaluate the impact of the type of gastro/duodenojejunal reconstruction (antecolic vs. retrocolic) after PD on DGE incidence.
METHODS
A systematic review was made according to the PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antecolic vs. retrocolic reconstruction were included irrespective of the PD techniques. A meta-analysis was then performed.
RESULTS
Six RCTs were included for a total of 588 patients. The overall quality was good. General risk of bias was low. DGE was not statistically significantly different between the antecolic and retrocolic group (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.31-1.16, p = 0.13). The other main surgery-related complications (pancreatic fistula, hemorrhage, intra-abdominal abscess, bile leak and wound infection) were not dependent on the reconstruction route (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.41-1.70, p = 0.63). No statistically significant difference in terms of length of hospital stay was found between the 2 groups. There was also no difference of DGE incidence if only pylorus-preserving PD was considered and between the DGE grades A, B or C.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis shows that antecolic reconstruction after PD is not superior to retrocolic reconstruction in terms of DGE.
Topics: Gastroenterostomy; Gastroparesis; Humans; Incidence; Models, Statistical; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 26566023
DOI: 10.1159/000441480