-
World Journal of Gastroenterology Oct 2020Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, mostly causing respiratory symptoms, is also known to affect the gastrointestinal tract. Several...
BACKGROUND
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, mostly causing respiratory symptoms, is also known to affect the gastrointestinal tract. Several case reports hypothesize that SARS-CoV-2 could be an etiological factor in acute pancreatitis (AP).
AIM
To assess all the available evidence in the literature relating to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and AP.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the available literature on the topic. The systematic search was conducted on 15 May 2020 on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Scopus with a search key using the terms "amylase," "lipase," "pancr*," "COVID-19" and synonyms. Due to the low quality and poor comparability of the studies, a meta-analysis was not performed.
RESULTS
Six case reports and two retrospective cohorts were included, containing data on eleven COVID-19 patients with AP. Five patients had AP according to the Atlanta classification. Other publications did not provide sufficient information on the diagnostic criteria. Most cases were considered SARS-CoV-2-induced, while several established etiological factors were not investigated. We were able to identify other possible causes in most of them.
CONCLUSION
We strongly highlight the need for adherence to the guidelines during a diagnostic and etiological workup, which could alter therapy.
Topics: Acute Disease; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Clinical Laboratory Techniques; Coronavirus Infections; Guideline Adherence; Humans; Pancreatitis; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Practice Guidelines as Topic; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33177799
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i40.6270 -
Transplantation Proceedings Nov 2020As the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has emerged as a viral pandemic, data on the clinical characteristics and...
BACKGROUND
As the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has emerged as a viral pandemic, data on the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing solid organ transplant are emerging. The objective of this systematic review was to assess currently published literature relating to the management, clinical course, and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in liver, kidney, and heart solid organ transplant recipients.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to assess currently published literature relating to the management, clinical course, and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in liver, kidney, and heart solid organ transplant recipients. Articles published through June 2020 were searched in the MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and PubMed databases. We identified 49 eligible studies comprising a total of 403 solid organ transplant recipients.
RESULTS
Older age, male sex, and preexisting comorbidities, including hypertension and/or diabetes, were the most common prevailing characteristics among the solid organ transplant recipients. Clinical presentation ranged from mild to severe disease, including multiorgan failure and death. We found an overall mortality rate of 21%.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis suggests no increase in overall mortality or worse outcome in solid organ transplant recipients receiving immunosuppressive therapy compared with mortality in the general surgical population with SARS-CoV-2. Our findings suggest that transplant surgery and its immunosuppressive effects should not be a deterrent to proper surgical care for patients in the SARS-CoV-2 era.
Topics: Aged; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Comorbidity; Coronavirus Infections; Female; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Male; Organ Transplantation; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 33127076
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.09.006 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Sep 2020Pancreatic duct stones can lead to significant abdominal pain for patients. Per oral pancreatoscopy (POP)-guided intracorporal lithotripsy is being increasingly used for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic duct stones can lead to significant abdominal pain for patients. Per oral pancreatoscopy (POP)-guided intracorporal lithotripsy is being increasingly used for the management of main pancreatic duct calculi (PDC) in chronic pancreatitis. POP uses two techniques: Electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) and laser lithotripsy (LL). Data on the safety and efficacy are limited for this procedure. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with a primary aim to calculate the pooled technical and clinical success rates of POP. The secondary aim was to assess pooled rates of technical success, clinical success for the two individual techniques, and adverse event rates.
AIM
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of POP, EHL and LL for management of PDC in chronic pancreatitis.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Google Scholar and Web of Science databases (from 1999 to October 2019) to identify studies with patient age greater than 17 and any gender that reported on outcomes of POP, EHL and LL. The primary outcome assessed involved the pooled technical success and clinical success rate of POP. The secondary outcome included the pooled technical success and clinical success rate for EHL and LL. We also assessed the pooled rate of adverse events for POP, EHL and LL including a subgroup analysis for the rate of adverse event subtypes for POP: Hemorrhage, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP), perforation, abdominal pain, fever and infections. Technical success was defined as the rate of clearing pancreatic duct stones and clinical success as the improvement in pain. Random-effects model was used for analysis. Heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was calculated using the Cochran statistical test and statistics. Publication bias was ascertained, qualitatively by visual inspection of funnel plot and quantitatively by the Egger test.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies including 383 patients met the inclusion criteria. The technical success rate of POP was 76.4% (95%CI: 65.9-84.5; = 64%) and clinical success rate was 76.8% (95%CI: 65.2-85.4; = 66%). The technical success rate of EHL was 70.3% (95%CI: 57.8-80.3; = 36%) and clinical success rate of EHL was 66.5% (95%CI: 55.2-76.2; = 19%). The technical success rate of LL was 89.3% (95%CI: 70.5-96.7; = 70%) and clinical success rate of LL was 88.2% (95%CI: 66.4-96.6; = 77%). The incidence of pooled adverse events for POP was 14.9% (95%CI: 9.2-23.2; = 49%), for EHL was 11.2% (95%CI: 5.9-20.3; = 15%) and for LL was 13.1% (95%CI: 6.3-25.4; = 31%). Subgroup analysis of adverse events showed rates of PEP at 7% (95%CI: 3.5-13.6; = 38%), fever at 3.7% (95%CI: 2-6.9; = 0), abdominal pain at 4.7% (95%CI: 2.7-7.8; = 0), perforation at 4.3% (95%CI: 2.1-8.4; = 0), hemorrhage at 3.4% (95%CI: 1.7-6.6; = 0) and no mortality. There was evidence of publication bias based on funnel plot analysis and Egger's test.
CONCLUSION
Our study highlights the high technical and clinical success rates for POP, EHL and LL. POP-guided lithotripsy could be a viable option for management of chronic pancreatitis with PDC.
Topics: Calculi; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Humans; Lithotripsy; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Ducts; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32982119
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i34.5207 -
Endocrine, Metabolic & Immune Disorders... 2021Coronaviruses are a big family of viruses that can infect mammalians and birds. In humans they mainly cause respiratory tract infections, with a large spectrum of...
Coronaviruses are a big family of viruses that can infect mammalians and birds. In humans they mainly cause respiratory tract infections, with a large spectrum of severity, from mild, self-limited infections to highly lethal forms as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Scanty data are reported for the involvement of endocrine glands in human coronaviruses, in particular SARS-CoV-2. In this review, we summarize endocrinological involvement in human coronaviruses, including data on animal coronaviruses. Avians, ferrets and bovine are affected by specific coronavirus syndromes, with variable involvement of endocrine glands. SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 use angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as a target receptor, so ACE2 plays a central role in viral transmission and initial organ involvement. Autoptic studies on SARS patients revealed that thyroid, parathyroid, pituitary gland, endocrine pancreas and especially adrenals and testis could be impaired by different mechanisms (direct damage by SARS-CoV, inflammation, vascular derangement and autoimmune reactions) and few clinical studies have evidenced functional endocrine impairment. Only few data are available for COVID-19 and gonads and endocrine pancreas seem to be involved. International endocrinological societies have brought some recommendations for the COVID-19 pandemic, but further studies need to be performed, especially to detect long-term hormonal sequelae.
Topics: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2; Animals; COVID-19; Endocrine Glands; Endocrine System; Endocrine System Diseases; Humans; Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32888287
DOI: 10.2174/1871530320666200905123332 -
Zentralblatt Fur Chirurgie Aug 202015 to 20% of patients with acute pancreatitis develop necrosis of the pancreatic parenchyma or extrapancreatic tissue. The disease is associated with a mortality rate of...
BACKGROUND
15 to 20% of patients with acute pancreatitis develop necrosis of the pancreatic parenchyma or extrapancreatic tissue. The disease is associated with a mortality rate of up to 20%. The mainstays of treatment consist of intensive medical care and surgical and interventional therapy.
METHODS
A systematic literature search focused on indications for surgical and interventional therapy of necrotising pancreatitis. 85 articles were analysed for this review. By using the Delphi method, the results were presented to the quality committee for pancreas diseases of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery and to expert pancreatologists in an interactive conference using plenary voting during the visceral medicine congress 2019 in Wiesbaden. For the finalised recommendations, an agreement of 84% of participants was achieved.
RESULTS
Documented or clinical suspicion of infected, necrotising pancreatitis are indications for surgical and interventional therapy (recommendation grade: strong; evidence grade; low). Sterile necrosis is a less common indication for intervention due to late complications or persistent severe pancreatitis. Invasive interventions should be delayed when possible until four weeks after onset of pancreatitis. Optimal treatment strategy consists of a "step-up approach" (evidence grade: high; recommendation grade: strong). The first step is catheter drainage, followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive surgical or interventional necrosectomy. If minimally invasive techniques do not result in clinical improvement, open necrosectomy is necessary. 35 to 50% of patients are successfully treated with drainage alone. Indications for emergency intervention are bowel perforation, bowel ischemia and bleeding. Surgical decompression of abdominal compartment syndrome is indicated if the patient is refractory to medical treatment and percutaneous drainage. Abscesses and symptomatic pseudocysts are indications for interventional drainage. Early cholecystectomy during index admission is recommended for patients with mild biliary pancreatitis. Cholecystectomy should be delayed after severe, biliary pancreatitis.
CONCLUSION
The recommendations for surgical an interventional therapy of necrotising pancreatitis address the basis of current indications in literature. They should serve in daily practice as a reference standard for decision making in multidisciplinary teams.
Topics: Acute Disease; Drainage; Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing
PubMed: 32557429
DOI: 10.1055/a-1164-7099 -
United European Gastroenterology Journal May 2020Although pancreatic tuberculosis (TB) is traditionally considered to be a rare clinical entity, in recent times, an increase in the number of reports of pancreatic TB...
INTRODUCTION
Although pancreatic tuberculosis (TB) is traditionally considered to be a rare clinical entity, in recent times, an increase in the number of reports of pancreatic TB has been noted. We conducted a systematic review in order to summarise currently available data on pancreatic TB.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search of Medline, Scopus and ISI Web of Science databases was conducted in order to identify papers reporting cases of pancreatic TB. The eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review required that the studies reported patient(s) affected by pancreatic TB and that individual data on age, sex, clinical presentation and outcome were available.
RESULTS
In total, 116 studies reporting data on 166 patients were included in the analysis. The majority of patients were males (62.1%) diagnosed at a mean age of 41.61 ± 13.95 years. Most cases were diagnosed in Asia (50.0%), followed by North America (22.9%), Europe (20.5%), Africa (4.2%) and South America (2.4%). Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection was diagnosed in 25.3% of those affected. Pancreatic TB most frequently presented itself in the form of a pancreatic mass (79.5%) localised mainly in the head (59.0%) and less frequently in the body (18.2%) and tail (13.4%). Extrapancreatic TB involvement most frequently affected the peripancreatic lymph nodes (47.3%). More than half of patients (55.2%) were subjected to laparotomy, while 21.08% underwent endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration biopsy. The presence of TB was identified most frequently through histological analysis (59.6%), followed by culture (28.9%), staining (27.7%) and, in a smaller number, by polymerase chain reaction (9.6%) and cytology (6.6%). Almost all patients received anti-tubercular pharmacological therapy (98.2%), while 24.1% underwent surgery. Despite treatment, 8.7% of patients died.
CONCLUSION
Increased awareness of pancreatic TB is needed, not only in endemic areas but especially in relation to HIV infection and other clinical conditions associated with immunoincompetence.
Topics: Antitubercular Agents; Endemic Diseases; Global Burden of Disease; HIV Infections; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatitis; Tuberculosis, Endocrine; Tuberculosis, Lymph Node
PubMed: 32213022
DOI: 10.1177/2050640620902353 -
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 -
Pancreatology : Official Journal of the... Jan 2020Peripancreatic necrosis (PPN) is considered as a distinct entity with a better outcome when compared with combined pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis (CPN), but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Isolated peripancreatic necrosis (PPN) is associated with better clinical outcomes compared with combined pancreatic and peripancreatic involvement (CPN)- a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Peripancreatic necrosis (PPN) is considered as a distinct entity with a better outcome when compared with combined pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis (CPN), but there is no systematic review to summarize the evidence. Our study aimed to perform a meta-analysis of existing observational studies comparing the outcomes of PPN with CPN.
METHODS
Studies in adult patients comparing the outcomes of PPN and CPN from PubMed, Medline, and Scopus databases from inception to November 2018 were systematically searched. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcomes included multi-organ failure, persistent organ failure, infected necrosis, need for interventions including open necrosectomy. Pooled adjusted odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained by the random-effects model. Forrest plots were constructed to show the summary pooled estimate. Heterogeneity was assessed by using I2 measure of inconsistency.
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies involving 1851 patients (1295 (70%) with CPN and 556 (30%) with PPN) were included. Patients with CPN had a significantly higher mortality (OR 2.49, 95% CI: 1.61-3.87), risk for multi-organ failure (OR 3.24, 95% CI: 2.38-4.43), persistent organ failure (OR 2.79, 95% CI: 1.53-5.08), and infected necrosis (OR 6.21, 95% CI: 3.85-10.03). They underwent more interventions (OR 5.86, 95% CI: 3.69-9.32), including open necrosectomy (OR 5.04, 95% CI: 3.33-7.63). Heterogeneity was low (I2 = 18.1, p = 0.296), and there was no publication bias.
CONCLUSION
Isolated peripancreatic necrosis portends an overall better prognosis when compared to necrosis involves pancreatic parenchyma. Clinicians should recognize this distinction for management decisions.
Topics: Humans; Necrosis; Pancreas; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing
PubMed: 31678043
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2019.10.004 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Oct 2019Laparoscopy has been widely used in general surgical procedures, but total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) is still a complex and challenging surgery that is... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopy has been widely used in general surgical procedures, but total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) is still a complex and challenging surgery that is only performed in a small number of patients at a few large academic medical centers. Although the safety and feasibility of TLPD have been established, few studies have compared it with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) with regard to perioperative and oncological outcomes. Therefore, we carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate whether TLPD is superior to OPD.
AIM
To compare the treatment outcomes of TLPD and OPD in order to assess the safety and feasibility of TLPD.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of studies comparing TLPD with OPD that were published in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases through December 31, 2018. The studies comparing TLPD and OPD with at least one of the outcomes we were interested in and with more than 10 cases in each group were included in this analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the nonrandomized controlled trials and the Jadad scale was used to assess the randomized controlled trials. Intraoperative data, postoperative complications, and oncologic outcomes were evaluated. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software version 5.3. Random or fixed-effects meta-analyses were undertaken to measure the pooled estimates.
RESULTS
A total of 4790 articles were initially identified for our study. After screening, 4762 articles were excluded and 28 studies representing 39771 patients (3543 undergoing TLPD and 36228 undergoing OPD) were eventually included. Patients who underwent TLPD had less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -260.08 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI): (-336.02, -184.14) mL, < 0.00001], a lower blood transfusion rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.36-0.72, = 0.0001], a lower perioperative overall morbidity (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.73-0.92, = 0.0008), a lower wound infection rate (OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.34-0.67, < 0.0001), a lower pneumonia rate (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.60-0.85, = 0.0002), a shorter duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay [WMD = -0.28 d, 95%CI (-2.88, -1.29) d, < 0.00001] and a shorter length of hospital stay [WMD = -3.05 d, 95%CI (-3.93, -2.17), < 0.00001], a lower rate of discharge to a new facility (OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.39-0.78, = 0.0008), and a lower 30-d readmission rate (OR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68-0.95, = 0.10) than those who underwent OPD. In addition, the TLPD group had a higher R0 rate (OR = 1.28, 95%CI: 1.13-1.44, = 0.0001) and more lymph nodes harvested (WMD = 1.32, 95%CI: 0.57-2.06, = 0.0005) than the OPD group. However, the patients who underwent TLPD experienced a significantly longer operative time (WMD = 77.92 min, 95%CI: 40.89-114.95, < 0.0001) and had a smaller tumor size than those who underwent OPD [WMD = -0.32 cm, 95%CI: (-0.58, -0.07) cm, = 0.01]. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, bile leak, gastroenteric anastomosis fistula, intra-abdominal abscess, bowel obstruction, fluid collection, reoperation, ICU admission, or 30-d and 90-d mortality rates. For malignant tumors, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year overall survival rates were not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis indicates that TLPD is safe and feasible, and may be a desirable alternative to OPD, although a longer operative time is needed and only smaller tumors can be treated.
Topics: Blood Transfusion; Clinical Trials as Topic; Disease-Free Survival; Feasibility Studies; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Laparoscopy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Operative Time; Pancreas; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Tumor Burden
PubMed: 31602170
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i37.5711 -
Medicine Sep 2019The use of octreotide prophylaxis following pancreatic surgery is controversial. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of octreotide for the prevention of postoperative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of octreotide prophylaxis following pancreatic surgery is controversial. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of octreotide for the prevention of postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery through this systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Literature databases (including the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases) were searched systematically for relevant articles. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion in our research. We extracted the basic information regarding the patients, intervention procedures, and all complications after pancreatic surgery and then performed the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs involving 2006 patients were identified. There were no differences between the octreotide group and the placebo group with regard to pancreatic fistulas (PFs) (relative risk [RR] = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62-0.99, P = .05), clinically significant PFs (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.68-1.50, P = .95), mortality (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.78-1.88, P = .40), biliary leakage (RR 0.84, 95% CI = 0.39-1.82, P = .66), delayed gastric emptying (RR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.54-1.27, P = .39), abdominal infection (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.66-1.52, P = 1.00), bleeding (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.78-1.72, P = .46), pulmonary complications (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.45-1.18, P = .20), overall complications (RR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.64-1.01, P = .06), and reoperation rates (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.77-1.81, P = .45). In the high-risk group, octreotide was no more effective at reducing PF formation than placebo (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.67-1.00, P = .05). In addition, octreotide had no influence on the incidence of PF (RR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.14-1.05, P = .06) after distal pancreatic resection and local pancreatic resection.
CONCLUSION
The present best evidence suggests that prophylactic use of octreotide has no effect on reducing complications after pancreatic resection.
Topics: Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Octreotide; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 31567967
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017196