-
Endoscopy International Open Apr 2022Treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis is changed over the past two decades with the availability of endoscopic, and minimally invasive surgical approaches. The aim of... (Review)
Review
Treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis is changed over the past two decades with the availability of endoscopic, and minimally invasive surgical approaches. The aim of this systematic review was to assess outcomes of endoscopic drainage, and different types of surgical drainage approaches in necrotizing pancreatitis. Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from 1998 to 2020 to assess outcomes in endoscopic drainage and various surgical drainage procedures. The assessed variables consisted of mortality, development of pancreatic or enteric fistula, new onset diabetes mellitus, and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. One hundred seventy studies comprising 11,807 patients were included in the final analysis. The pooled mortality rate was 22 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 19%-26 %) in the open surgery (OS), 8 % (95 %CI:5 %-11 %) in minimally invasive surgery (MIS), 13 % (95 %CI: 9 %-18 %) in step-up approach, and 3 % (95 %CI:2 %-4 %) in the endoscopic drainage (ED). The pooled rate of fistula formation was 35 % (95 %CI:28 %-41 %) in the OS, 17 % (95 %CI: 12%-23 %) in MIS, 17 % (95 %CI: 9 %-27 %) in step-up approach, and 2 % (95 %CI: 0 %-4 %) in ED. There were 17 comparative studies comparing various surgical drainage methods with ED. The mortality rate was significantly lower in ED compared to OS (risk ratio [RR]: 30; 95 %CI: 0.20-0.45), and compared to MIS (RR: 0.40; 95 %CI: 0.26-0.6). Also, the rate of fistula formation was lower in ED compared to all other surgical drainage approaches. This systematic review demonstrated lower rate of fistula formation with ED compared to various surgical drainage methods. A lower rate of mortality with ED was also observed in observational studies. PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42020139354.
PubMed: 35433210
DOI: 10.1055/a-1783-9229 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Postoperative pancreatic fistula is a common and serious complication following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy has been used in many... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pancreatic fistula is a common and serious complication following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy has been used in many centers to reconstruct pancreatic digestive continuity following pancreatoduodenectomy, however, its efficacy and safety are uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy versus other types of pancreaticojejunostomy for the reconstruction of pancreatic digestive continuity in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, and to compare the effects of different duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy techniques.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library (2021, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to 9 January 2021), Embase (1988 to 9 January 2021), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1982 to 9 January 2021).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy with other types of pancreaticojejunostomy (e.g. invagination pancreaticojejunostomy, binding pancreaticojejunostomy) in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. We also included RCTs that compared different types of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs involving a total of 1696 participants in the review. One RCT was a dual-center study; the other 10 RCTs were single-center studies conducted in: China (4 studies); Japan (2 studies); USA (1 study); Egypt (1 study); Germany (1 study); India (1 study); and Italy (1 study). The mean age of participants ranged from 54 to 68 years. All RCTs were at high risk of bias. Duct-to-mucosa versus any other type of pancreaticojejunostomy We included 10 RCTs involving 1472 participants comparing duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy with invagination pancreaticojejunostomy: 732 participants were randomized to the duct-to-mucosa group, and 740 participants were randomized to the invagination group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Comparing the two techniques, the evidence is very uncertain for the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C; RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.26; 7 studies, 1122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49; 10 studies, 1472 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of surgical reintervention (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.95; 10 studies, 1472 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of postoperative bleeding (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.42; 9 studies, 1275 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall rate of surgical complications (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; 5 studies, 750 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.41 days, 95% CI -1.87 to 1.04; 4 studies, 658 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report adverse events or quality of life outcomes. One type of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy versus a different type of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy We included one RCT involving 224 participants comparing duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique with duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique: 112 participants were randomized to the modified Blumgart group, and 112 participants were randomized to the traditional interrupted group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Comparing the two techniques, the evidence is very uncertain for the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C; RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.75; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (there were no deaths in either group; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of surgical reintervention (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.18 to 20.91; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of postoperative bleeding (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.12 to 70.11; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall rate of surgical complications (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.51; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (15 days versus 15 days; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report adverse events or quality of life outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy compared to invagination pancreaticojejunostomy on any of the outcomes, including rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C), postoperative mortality, rate of surgical reintervention, rate of postoperative bleeding, overall rate of surgical complications, and length of hospital stay. The evidence is also very uncertain whether duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique is superior, equivalent or inferior to duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique. None of the studies reported adverse events or quality of life outcomes.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Middle Aged; Mucous Membrane; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35289922
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013462.pub2 -
Hepatobiliary Surgery and Nutrition Feb 2022Aberrant right hepatic arteries (aRHA) are frequently encountered during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Their effects on surgical morbidity and resection margin are still...
Preservation of aberrant right hepatic arteries does not affect safety and oncological radicality of pancreaticoduodenectomy-own results and a systematic review of the literature.
BACKGROUND
Aberrant right hepatic arteries (aRHA) are frequently encountered during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Their effects on surgical morbidity and resection margin are still debated. This study aimed to compare the short term and long term outcomes in patients with and without aRHA.
METHODS
A single-center retrospective analysis of 353 consecutive PD during a 5-year period was done. The type of arterial supply was determined preoperatively by CT and confirmed at surgery. Hiatt types III-VI included some type of aRHA and comprised the study group. Hiatt types I and II were considered irrelevant for PD and used as controls. Primary endpoints were the rates of major postoperative complications and the rate of R0-resection in cases of malignant disease. Secondary endpoints included duration of surgery, postoperative stay, number of harvested lymph nodes and survival in patients with pancreatic cancer. Own results were compared to existent data using a systematic review of the literature.
RESULTS
No aRHA had to be sacrificed or reconstructed. Surgical morbidity and specific complications such as post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), pancreatic fistula and bile leak were the same in patients with and without aRHA. There was no significant difference in operative time, blood loss, length of ICU- and hospital stay. Patients with malignancy had similar high rates of R0-resection and identical number of harvested lymph nodes. Survival of patients with pancreatic cancer was not affected by aRHA.
CONCLUSIONS
aRHA may be preserved in virtually all cases of PD for resectable pancreatic head lesions without increasing surgical morbidity and without compromising oncological radicality in patients with cancer, provided the variant anatomy is being recognised on preoperative CT and a meticulous surgical technique is used.
PubMed: 35284530
DOI: 10.21037/hbsn-20-352 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022Although minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has gained worldwide interest, there are limited comparative studies between two minimally invasive...
BACKGROUND
Although minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has gained worldwide interest, there are limited comparative studies between two minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy techniques. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), especially the difference in the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes.
METHODS
PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before July 2021. Data on operative times, blood loss, overall morbidity, major complications, vascular resection, blood transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), conversion rate, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), and lymph node dissection were subjected to meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Overall, the final analysis included 9 retrospective studies comprising 3,732 patients; 1,149 (30.79%) underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), and 2,583 (69.21%) underwent LPD. The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in operative times, overall morbidity, major complications, blood transfusion, POPF, DGE, reoperation, and LOS. Alternatively, compared with LPD, RPD was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.002), less conversion rate (p < 0.00001), less vascular resection (p = 0.0006), and more retrieved lymph nodes (p = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
RPD is at least equivalent to LPD with respect to the incidence of complication, incidence and severity of DGE, and reoperation and length of hospital stay. Compared with LPD, RPD seems to be associated with less blood loss, lower conversion rate, less vascular resection, and more retrieved lymph nodes.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD2021274057.
PubMed: 35280811
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.834382 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2021With advancement in health technology, the detection rate of pancreatic neoplasms is increasing. Tissue sparing surgery (enucleation) as well as standard surgical...
BACKGROUND
With advancement in health technology, the detection rate of pancreatic neoplasms is increasing. Tissue sparing surgery (enucleation) as well as standard surgical resection are two commonly used modalities of management. There are studies comparing clinical outcomes between these two modalities; however, there is lack of studies that systematically pool the available findings to present conclusive and reliable evidence.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted using the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Studies that were randomised controlled trials or cohort based or analysed retrospective data were considered for inclusion. Studies should have been done in adult patients with pancreatic neoplasms and should have examined the outcomes of interest by the two management modalities i.e., enucleation and standard surgical resection. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA software.
RESULTS
A total of 20 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The operation time (in minutes) (WMD -78.20; 95% CI: -89.47, -66.93) and blood loss (in ml) (WMD -204.30; 95% CI: -281.70, -126.90) for enucleation was significantly lesser than standard surgical resection. The risk of endocrine (RR 0.32; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.56) and exocrine insufficiency (RR 0.16; 95% CI: 0.07, 0.34) was lower whereas the risk of post-operative pancreatic fistula (RR 1.46; 95% CI: 1.22, 1.75) was higher in enucleation, compared to standard surgical resection group. There were no differences in the risk of reoperation, readmission, recurrence, mortality within 90 days and 5-years overall mortality between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Enucleation, compared to standard surgical resection, was associated with better clinical outcomes and therefore, might be considered for selected pancreatic neoplasms. There is a need for randomised controlled trials to document the efficacy of these two management techniques.
PubMed: 35155544
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.744316 -
Annals of Surgery Open : Perspectives... Mar 2022To depict and analyze learning curves for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To depict and analyze learning curves for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).
BACKGROUND
Formal training is recommended for safe introduction of pancreatic surgery but definitions of learning curves vary and have not been standardized.
METHODS
A systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in pancreatic surgery. Primary outcome was the number needed to reach the learning curve as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, methods of analysis (statistical/arbitrary), and classification of learning phases.
RESULTS
Out of 1115 articles, 66 studies with 14,206 patients were included. Thirty-five studies (53%) based the learning curve analysis on statistical calculations. Most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n = 51), blood loss (n = 17), and complications (n = 10). The number of procedures to surpass a first phase of learning curve was 30 (20-50) for open PD, 39 (11-60) for laparoscopic PD, 25 (8-100) for robotic PD ( = 0.521), 16 (3-17) for laparoscopic DP, and 15 (5-37) for robotic DP ( = 0.914). In a three-phase model, intraoperative parameters improved earlier (first to second phase: operating time -15%, blood loss -29%) whereas postoperative parameters improved later (second to third phase: complications -46%, postoperative pancreatic fistula -48%). Studies with higher sample sizes showed higher numbers of procedures needed to overcome the learning curve (rho = 0.64, < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
This study summarizes learning curves for open-, laparoscopic-, and robotic pancreatic surgery with different definitions, analysis methods, and confounding factors. A standardized reporting of learning curves and definition of phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is desirable and proposed.
PubMed: 37600094
DOI: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000111 -
Gland Surgery Dec 2021C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) have recently been used to diagnose and screen for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) following...
BACKGROUND
C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) have recently been used to diagnose and screen for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), but their reliability is still unclear. Our study aims to assess the efficacy of CRP and PCT in the diagnosis of POPF after PD.
METHODS
Electronic databases such as PubMed, Excerpta Medica (EMBASE), the Web of Science (WOS) and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were used to search for studies and full-text articles that assessed the diagnostic efficacy of CRP and PCT for POPF. Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 14.0 were used to estimate the pooled diagnostic value of CRP and PCT. Sensitivity analyses and Deeks' funnel plot tests were conducted on the selected studies.
RESULTS
Twenty studies that satisfied the established selection criteria were chosen. Both CRP and PCT were shown to be highly effective in diagnosing POPF, each with a high area under the curve (AUC). The AUC of CRP on postoperative day (POD) 4 had a value of 0.86, with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.85 and 0.69, respectively. The AUC of PCT on POD 5 had a value of 0.87, with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.84 and 0.74, respectively.
DISCUSSION
Our research supports the hypothesis that CRP and PCT are valuable diagnostic tools for predicting POPF, especially given the CRP levels on POD 4 and PCT levels on POD 5. Limited by the small number of the studies analyzed herein, we recommend that more randomized controlled trials be performed to verify our conclusions.
PubMed: 35070885
DOI: 10.21037/gs-21-658 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Pancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialised nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialised nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant lesions, partial pancreaticoduodenectomy represents the standard treatment for resectable tumours. The gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy can be reestablished via either an antecolic or retrocolic route. The debate about the more favourable technique for bowel reconstruction is ongoing.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of antecolic and retrocolic gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.
SEARCH METHODS
In this updated version, we conducted a systematic literature search up to 6 July 2021 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 6, MEDLINE (1946 to 6 July 2021), and Embase (1974 to 6 July 2021). We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched reference lists of identified trials to identify further relevant trials, and searched the trial registries clinicaltrials.govand World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all RCTs comparing antecolic with retrocolic reconstruction of bowel continuity after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy for any given indication to be eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the identified references and extracted data from the included trials. The same two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials, according to standard Cochrane methodology. We used a random-effects model to pool the results of the individual trials in a meta-analysis. We used odds ratios (OR) to compare binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Of a total of 287 citations identified by the systematic literature search, we included eight randomised controlled trials (reported in 11 publications), with a total of 818 participants. There was high risk of bias in all of the trials in regard to blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors and unclear risk for selective reporting in six of the trials. There was little or no difference in the frequency of delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.09; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence) with relevant heterogeneity between trials (I=40%). There was little or no difference in postoperative mortality (risk difference (RD) -0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; eight trials, 818 participants, high-certainty evidence); postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.40; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence); postoperative haemorrhage (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.59; six trials, 742 participants, low-certainty evidence); intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.74; seven trials, 788 participants, low-certainty evidence); bile leakage (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.91; seven trials, 606 participants, low-certainty evidence); reoperation rate (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.36; five trials, 682 participants, low-certainty evidence); and length of hospital stay (MD -0.21; 95% CI -1.41 to 0.99; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence). Only one trial reported quality of life, on a subgroup of 73 participants, also without a relevant difference between the two groups at any time point. The overall certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, due to some degree of heterogeneity, inconsistency and risk of bias in the included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that antecolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy results in little to no difference in morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, or quality of life. Due to heterogeneity in definitions of the endpoints between trials, and differences in postoperative management, future research should be based on clearly defined endpoints and standardised perioperative management, to potentially elucidate differences between these two procedures. Novel strategies should be evaluated for prophylaxis and treatment of common complications, such as delayed gastric emptying.
Topics: Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 35014692
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011862.pub3 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Soft pancreas is widely recognized as an important risk factor for the development of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Although fatty pancreas (FP) has not been...
BACKGROUND
Soft pancreas is widely recognized as an important risk factor for the development of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Although fatty pancreas (FP) has not been formally defined as a cause of pancreatic fistula, existing research has shown that it can increase the incidence of POPF by increasing pancreatic tenderness; therefore, it may be a potential risk factor. This study aimed to discern whether FP was associated with POPF.
METHOD
Two reviewers independently performed literature searches from five electronic databases. According to the established inclusion criteria, we extracted necessary data from the studies that met the criteria for further analysis. We pooled the odds ratios (ORs) from individual studies using a random-effects model to investigate the associations between POPF and the prognosis of FP.
RESULT
A total of 11 studies involving 2484 individuals were included. The pooled prevalence of POPF was 18% (95% CI: 12-24%). Body mass index (BMI) was associated with a significantly increased risk of POPF (OR=3.55; 95% CI: 1.83, 6.86; P=0.0002; I²=0). FP was obviously associated with the occurrence of POPF (OR=3.75; 95% CI: 1.64, 8.58; P=0.002; I²=78).
CONCLUSION
FP is closely associated with the development of POPF, and the early identification of these high-risk patients can help to reduce the incidence of POPF.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
The Registration URL link is (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/). The ID is "CRD42021265141".
PubMed: 34926236
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.622282 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is the third update of a previously published Cochrane Review to address the uncertain benifits of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.
SEARCH METHODS
In this updated review, we re-searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) on 08 February 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included RCTs that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for important outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified a total of nine RCTs with 1892 participants. Drain use versus no drain use We included four RCTs with 1110 participants, randomised to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. Low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may reduce 90-day mortality (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants). Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may result in little to no difference in 30-day mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants), wound infection rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants), length of hospital stay (MD -0.14 days, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.51; three studies, 876 participants), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants), and quality of life (105 points versus 104 points; measured with the pancreas-specific quality of life questionnaire (scale 0 to 144, higher values indicating a better quality of life); one study, 399 participants). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that drain use probably resulted in little to no difference in morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of drain use on intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; three studies, 660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Active versus passive drain We included two RCTs involving 383 participants, randomised to the active drain group (N = 194) and the passive drain group (N = 189) after pancreatic surgery. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on 30-day mortality (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.06; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.66; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.90; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.77; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.04; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.83; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no drain-related complication in either group. Early versus late drain removal We included three RCTs involving 399 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, randomised to the early drain removal group (N = 200) and the late drain removal group (N = 199) after pancreatic surgery. Compared to late drain removal, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of early drain removal on 30-day mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.45; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.85; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), hospital costs (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.14; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.10; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.79; one study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -2.20 days, 95% CI -3.52 to -0.87; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain. None of the studies reported on drain-related complications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with no drain use, it is unclear whether routine drain use has any effect on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that routine drain use may reduce mortality at 90 days. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications. Compared with late drain removal, early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate, morbidity, and length of hospital stay for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but the evidence is very uncertain.
Topics: Abdomen; Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula
PubMed: 34921395
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub5