-
International Journal of Surgery... May 2024The impact of different pre-transplant dialysis modalities on post-transplant outcomes for pancreas-kidney transplantation is currently unclear. This study aims to...
BACKGROUND
The impact of different pre-transplant dialysis modalities on post-transplant outcomes for pancreas-kidney transplantation is currently unclear. This study aims to assess the association between pretransplant dialysis modalities (hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis) and outcomes following pancreas-kidney transplantation.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies published from inception until December 1, 2023. We included studies that examined the relationship between pre-transplant dialysis modalities and clinical outcomes for pancreas-kidney transplantation. The primary outcomes considered were patient, pancreas and kidney graft survival, and intra-abdominal infection.
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies involving 1503 pancreas-kidney transplant recipients were included. Pretransplant hemodialysis was associated with improved pancreas graft survival (hazard ratio = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51 - 0.99, I² = 12%) and a decreased risk of intra-abdominal infection (odds ratio [OR] = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51 - 0.93, I² = 5%). However, no significant association was found between the dialysis modalities and patient or kidney graft survival. Furthermore, pre-transplant hemodialysis was linked to a reduced risk of anastomotic leak (OR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.161 - 0.68, I² = 0%) and graft thrombosis (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33 - 0.96, I² = 20%).
CONCLUSION
Pre-transplant hemodialysis is the preferred dialysis modality while awaiting pancreas-kidney transplantation, although well-designed prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
PubMed: 38701525
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001542 -
Pancreas May 2024Proximal migration is one of the complications after pancreatic duct stenting. This study aimed to determine the incidence of proximal migration and to analyze the...
OBJECTIVES
Proximal migration is one of the complications after pancreatic duct stenting. This study aimed to determine the incidence of proximal migration and to analyze the rescue methods.
METHODS
A search was performed in MEDLINE/EMBASE database. The literatures included were reviewed and analyzed. Retrieval tools were classified into 3 classes: Class A works by indirectly contacting the outer surface of the stent. Class B works by directly contacting the outer surface. Class C works by directly contacting the inner surface.
RESULTS
416 literatures were retrieved from 1983 to 2021. 15 literatures were included. The incidence of proximal migration of pancreatic stents was 4.7% (106/2246). The success rate of endotherapy was 86.6% (214/247), and the surgical conversion rate of it was 9.3%. Among the 214 cases in which the displaced stents were successfully removed under endoscopy, 49 cases (22.9%) used Class A methods, 154 cases (72.0%) used Class B methods and 11 cases (5.1%) used Class C methods. The overall rate of postoperative complication was 12.1%, including postprocedure pancreatitis (9.1%, 18/247), followed by bleeding (1.5%), perforation (1.0%) and biliary infection (0.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
Endoscopy is an effective method for the treatment of proximal displacement of pancreatic stents with acceptable complication rate.
PubMed: 38696448
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000002354 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024Acute rejection (AR) is the predominant form of rejection observed in liver transplantation and plays a crucial role in transplant immunology. This study aims to...
Acute rejection (AR) is the predominant form of rejection observed in liver transplantation and plays a crucial role in transplant immunology. This study aims to utilize bibliometric analysis to understand the , hotspots, and future trends of research on AR after liver transplantation. We searched the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) for studies on AR after liver transplantation published from 1988 to 2022. The Bibliometric Online Analysis Platform, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace were used for analysis of all extracted publications. This study included 2,398 articles published in 456 journals by 12,568 authors from 1,965 institutions in 55 countries/regions. The United States and its affiliated institution, the University of Pittsburgh, were the most productive contributors. (n = 12,435) was the most frequently cited journal. Neuhaus P (n = 38) was the highest output author, and Demetris AJ (n = 670) was the most co-cited author. The research hotspots of AR after liver transplantation include pathogenesis, immunosuppressive therapy, and prognosis. Emerging research directions include regulatory T cells, immunosuppression minimization, intra-patient variability (IPV) of tacrolimus, and novel non-invasive diagnostic markers. Our study utilized bibliometric methods to analyze the study of AR after liver transplantation over the past 35 years. With the prolonged survival of liver transplant recipients, the most active areas currently focus on individualized treatment and improving patient prognosis. Minimizing adverse reactions to immunosuppressive therapy while simultaneously avoiding an increase in the risk of AR remains a future research focus.
PubMed: 38694927
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1357468 -
International Journal of Surgery... Apr 2024
PubMed: 38640510
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001417 -
European Radiology Apr 2024To evaluate the diagnostic performance of quantitative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging biomarkers in distinguishing between inflammatory pancreatic masses (IPM) and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of quantitative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging biomarkers in distinguishing between inflammatory pancreatic masses (IPM) and pancreatic cancer (PC).
METHODS
A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science through August 2023. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was used to evaluate the risk of bias and applicability of the studies. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird method. Univariate meta-regression analysis was used to identify the potential factors of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies were included in this meta-analysis. The two main types of IPM, mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP) and autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP), differ in their apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. Compared with PC, the ADC value was higher in MFP but lower in AIP. The pooled sensitivity/specificity of ADC were 0.80/0.85 for distinguishing MFP from PC and 0.82/0.84 for distinguishing AIP from PC. The pooled sensitivity/specificity for the maximal diameter of the upstream main pancreatic duct (dMPD) was 0.86/0.74, with a cutoff of dMPD ≤ 4 mm, and 0.97/0.52, with a cutoff of dMPD ≤ 5 mm. The pooled sensitivity/specificity for perfusion fraction (f) was 0.82/0.68, and 0.82/0.77 for mass stiffness values.
CONCLUSIONS
Quantitative MR imaging biomarkers are useful in distinguishing between IPM and PC. ADC values differ between MFP and AIP, and they should be separated for consideration in future studies.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT
Quantitative MR parameters could serve as non-invasive imaging biomarkers for differentiating malignant pancreatic neoplasms from inflammatory masses of the pancreas, and hence help to avoid unnecessary surgery.
KEY POINTS
• Several quantitative MR imaging biomarkers performed well in differential diagnosis between inflammatory pancreatic mass and pancreatic cancer. • The ADC value could discern pancreatic cancer from mass-forming pancreatitis or autoimmune pancreatitis, if the two inflammatory mass types are not combined. • The diameter of main pancreatic duct had the highest specificity for differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer.
PubMed: 38639911
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10720-9 -
Infectious Diseases & Clinical... Sep 2023This study aimed to determine the effect of prophylactic use of carbapenems for acute pancreatitis on clinical outcomes. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to determine the effect of prophylactic use of carbapenems for acute pancreatitis on clinical outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
It was conducted according to the preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by using the keywords "Pancrea AND carbapenem OR imipenem OR ertapenem OR meropenem OR doripenem." Primer outcomes were mortality, surgical intervention, and pancreatic and non-pancreatic infection. Subgroup analyses were also performed to reduce the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Ten studies with 4038 patients were included in the meta-analyses. While eight of ten were randomized controlled trials, two were observational studies. The prophylactic use of carbapenems had no statistically significant effect on mortality (OR=0.82, 95% CI=0.65-1.04, I²=0%) and surgical intervention. (OR=0.81, 95% CI=0.57-1.17, I²=0%). However, the real impact of prophylaxis on reducing the incidence of mortality and surgical intervention was uncertain due to the insufficient sample size. The prophylactic use of carbapenems was significantly associated with a lower risk of peripancreatic (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.25-0.55, I²=61%) and non-pancreatic infection risk (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.46-0.78, I²=65%). The definitions of infection in the articles were not clear, and the diagnostic approach to infection was based on subjective criteria. In addition, there was inadequate collateral damage and safety assessments. In high-quality studies with a low risk of bias, prophylactic carbapenems had no effect on peripancreatic infection (RR=1.54, 95% CI=0.65-3.47, I²=0%) and non-pancreatic infection (RR=0.72, 95% CI=0.48-1.07, I²=0%).
CONCLUSION
Although there is a reduction in the infection risk, routine carbapenem use in acute pancreatitis cases should not be recommended based on current evidence. Cooperation with Infectious Disease specialists and developing diagnostic algorithms are required instead of routine prophylaxis to prevent infection, especially non-pancreatic infection.
PubMed: 38633556
DOI: 10.36519/idcm.2023.239 -
World Journal of Surgery Jun 2024In patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), there has been some evidence favoring pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) over pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) in the occurrence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
In patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), there has been some evidence favoring pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) over pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) in the occurrence of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) and considering PG as a safer anastomotic technique. However, other publications revealed comparable incidences of POPF attributed to both techniques. The current work attempts to reach a more consolidated conclusion about such an issue.
METHODS
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis that analyzed the studies comparing PG and PJ during PD in terms of the rate of POPF occurrence. Studies were obtained by searching the Scopus, PubMed Central, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases.
RESULTS
35 articles published between 1995 and 2022 presented data from 14,666 patients; 4547 underwent PG and 10,119 underwent PJ. Statistically significant lower rates of POPF (p = 0.044) and clinically relevant CR-POPF (p = 0.043) were shown in the PG group. The post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) was significantly higher in the PG group, while no significant difference was found between the two groups in the clinically significant PPH. No statistically significant differences were found regarding the amount of intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, DGE, overall morbidity rates, reoperation rates, or mortality rates. The percentage of male sex in the PG group and the percentage of soft pancreas in the PJ group seem to influence the odds ratio of CR-POPF (p = 0.076 and 0.074, respectively).
CONCLUSION
The present study emphasizes the superiority of PG over PJ regarding CR-POPF rates. Higher rates of postoperative hemorrhage were associated with PG. Yet, the clinically significant hemorrhage rate was comparable between the two groups.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Complications; Gastrostomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Incidence; Pancreatectomy
PubMed: 38629863
DOI: 10.1002/wjs.12173 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Mar 2024(1) This study comprehensively compared robotic pancreatic surgery with vascular resection (RPS-VR) to other surgical procedures in the treatment of pancreatic ductal... (Review)
Review
(1) This study comprehensively compared robotic pancreatic surgery with vascular resection (RPS-VR) to other surgical procedures in the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). (2) A systematic review of relevant literature was conducted to assess a range of crucial surgical and oncological outcomes. (3) Findings indicate that robotic surgery with vascular resections (VRs) significantly prolongs the duration of surgery compared to other surgical procedures, and they notably demonstrate an equal hospital stay. While some studies reported a lower conversion rate and a higher rate of blood loss and blood transfusion in the RPS-VR group, others found no significant disparity. Furthermore, RPS-VR consistently correlated with comparable recurrence rates, free margins R0, postoperative mortality, and complication rates. Concerning the last one, certain reviews reported a higher rate of major complications. Overall survival and disease-free survival remained comparable between the RPS-VR and other surgical techniques in treating PDAC. (4) The analysis emphasizes how RPS-VR is a resembling approach in terms of surgical outcomes and aligns with existing literature findings in this field.
PubMed: 38610766
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13072000 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Jul 2024Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy is defined for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and adopted for patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer...
Differences in Lymph Node Metastases Patterns Among Non-pancreatic Periampullary Cancers and Histologic Subtypes: An International Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study and Systematic Review.
BACKGROUND
Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy is defined for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and adopted for patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC), ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), or duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC). This study aimed to compare the patterns of lymph node metastases among the different NPPCs in a large series and in a systematic review to guide the discussion on surgical lymphadenectomy and pathology assessment.
METHODS
This retrospective cohort study included patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for NPPC with at least one lymph node metastasis (2010-2021) from 24 centers in nine countries. The primary outcome was identification of lymph node stations affected in case of a lymph node metastasis per NPPC. A separate systematic review included studies on lymph node metastases patterns of AAC, dCCA, and DAC.
RESULTS
The study included 2367 patients, of whom 1535 had AAC, 616 had dCCA, and 216 had DAC. More patients with pancreatobiliary type AAC had one or more lymph node metastasis (67.2% vs 44.8%; P < 0.001) compared with intestinal-type, but no differences in metastasis pattern were observed. Stations 13 and 17 were most frequently involved (95%, 94%, and 90%). Whereas dCCA metastasized more frequently to station 12 (13.0% vs 6.4% and 7.0%, P = 0.005), DAC metastasized more frequently to stations 6 (5.0% vs 0% and 2.7%; P < 0.001) and 14 (17.0% vs 8.4% and 11.7%, P = 0.015).
CONCLUSION
This study is the first to comprehensively demonstrate the differences and similarities in lymph node metastases spread among NPPCs, to identify the existing research gaps, and to underscore the importance of standardized lymphadenectomy and pathologic assessment for AAC, dCCA, and DAC.
Topics: Humans; Lymphatic Metastasis; Retrospective Studies; Ampulla of Vater; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Duodenal Neoplasms; Male; Female; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Adenocarcinoma; Lymph Node Excision; Cholangiocarcinoma; Aged; Middle Aged; Prognosis; Follow-Up Studies; Lymph Nodes; Bile Duct Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal
PubMed: 38602578
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-15213-z -
Expert Review of Gastroenterology &... 2024A genetic predisposition seems to be involved in biliary tract cancer, but the prevalence of germline mutations in BTC remains unclear, and the therapeutic role of the...
INTRODUCTION
A genetic predisposition seems to be involved in biliary tract cancer, but the prevalence of germline mutations in BTC remains unclear, and the therapeutic role of the germline pathologic variants is still unknown.
AREA COVERED
The aim of the present work is to systematically review the data available on the hereditary predisposition of biliary tract cancer by a specific research on PubMed, in order to highlight the most important critical points and to define the current possible role of germinal testing and genetic counseling in this setting of patients.
EXPERT OPINION
Basing on data already available, we decided to start in our institution a specific genetic protocol focused on biliary tract cancer patients, which includes genetic counseling and, if indicated, germline test. The inclusion criteria are: 1) Patient with personal history of oncologic disease other than BTC, 2) Patient with familiar history of oncologic disease (considering relatives of first and second grade), 3) Patient with ≤ 50 years old, 4) Patient presenting a somatic mutation in genes involved in DNA damage repair pathways and mismatch repair. The aim of the presented protocol is to identify germline pathogenic variants with prophylactic and therapeutic impact, and to collect and integrate a significant amount of clinical, familial, somatic, and genetic data.
Topics: Humans; Biliary Tract Neoplasms; Biomarkers, Tumor; Genetic Counseling; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Genetic Testing; Germ-Line Mutation; Phenotype; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Factors
PubMed: 38584510
DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2024.2337000