-
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia... 2018Periampular neoplasms represent 5% of all cancers of the gastrointestinal tract with peak incidence in the 7th decade of life. The most common clinical picture is...
INTRODUCTION
Periampular neoplasms represent 5% of all cancers of the gastrointestinal tract with peak incidence in the 7th decade of life. The most common clinical picture is jaundice, weight loss and abdominal pain. Considering that cholestasis is related to postoperative complications, preoperative biliary drainage was developed to improve the postoperative morbidity and mortality of icteric patients with periampular neoplasias, whether resectable or not.
OBJECTIVE
To describe the outcome of patients with periampullary tumors undergoing preoperative biliary drainage with pancreatoduodenectomy.
METHOD
The search was performed in the Medline/PubMed and Virtual Health Library databases by means of the combination of descriptors of the Medical Subject Headings. Inclusion criteria were clinical trials, cohorts, studies that analyze the morbidity and mortality of preoperative biliary drainage in Portuguese, English and Spanish. Exclusion criteria were studies published more than 10 years ago, experimental studies, systematic reviews and articles with WebQualis C or smaller journal in the area of Medicine I or Medicine III. Of the 196 references found, 46 were obtained for reading with quality assessed through the Checklist Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. Eight studies were selected for review.
RESULTS
A total of 1116 patients with a sample ranging from 48 to 280 patients and a mean age of 48 to 69 years were obtained. Of the eight studies, four observed a higher rate of bleeding in drained patients; three a higher rate of positive bile culture in the intervention group; site and cavitary infection, and biliopancreatic leaks were more common in the drainage group in two studies each. The death outcome and rate of reoperation were observed in larger numbers in the control group in one study each.
CONCLUSION
Preoperative intervention leads to a higher rate of infectious complications and bleeding.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Drainage; Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Preoperative Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29972400
DOI: 10.1590/0102-672020180001e1372 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.
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
For the last version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 8), and MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) to 28 August 2016). For this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2016 to 15 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled studies that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We identified six studies (1384 participants). 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 (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Drain use versus no drain useWe included four studies with 1110 participants, who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. There was little or no difference in mortality at 30 days between groups (1.5% with drains versus 2.3% with no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Drain use probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days (0.8% versus 4.2%; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We were uncertain whether drain use reduced intra-abdominal infection (7.9% versus 8.2%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-quality evidence), or additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (10.9% versus 12.1%; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; three studies, 660 participants; very low-quality evidence). Drain use may lead to similar amount of wound infection (9.8% versus 9.9%; RR 0.98 , 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence), and additional open procedures for postoperative complications (9.4% versus 7.1%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with no drain use. There was little or no difference in morbidity (61.7% versus 59.7%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies, 711 participants; moderate-quality evidence) between groups. There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Health-related quality of life was measured with the pancreas-specific quality-of-life questionnaire (FACT-PA; a scale of 0 to 144 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Drain use may lead to similar quality of life scores, measured at 30 days after pancreatic surgery, when compared with no drain use (105 points versus 104 points; one study, 399 participants; low-quality evidence). Hospital costs and pain were not reported in any of the studies.Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants, who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. An active drain may lead to similar mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain; low-quality evidence), and morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15; low-quality evidence) when compared with a passive drain. We were uncertain whether an active drain decreased intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05; very low-quality evidence), or the number of additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29; very low-quality evidence). Active drain may reduce length of hospital stay slightly (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; one study; low-quality evidence; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay). Additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no mortality in either group. Early drain removal may slightly reduce morbidity (38.6% with early drain removal versus 61.4% with late drain removal; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93; low-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; low-quality evidence; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (MD -EUR 2069.00, 95% CI -3872.26 to -265.74; low-quality evidence; 17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs). We were uncertain whether early drain removal reduced additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% versus 1.8%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01; one study; very low-quality evidence). Intra-abdominal infection, wound infection, additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It was unclear whether routine abdominal drainage had any effect on the reduction of mortality at 30 days, or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that routine abdominal drainage probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days. Low-quality evidence suggested that use of an active drain compared to the use of a passive drain may slightly reduce the length of hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.
Topics: Abdomen; Device Removal; Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 29928755
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub4 -
Pancreatology : Official Journal of the... Apr 2018Although routinely used, the benefit of surgically placed intraperitoneal drains after pancreas resection is still under debate. To assess the true impact of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although routinely used, the benefit of surgically placed intraperitoneal drains after pancreas resection is still under debate. To assess the true impact of intraperitoneal drains in pancreas resection, a systematic review with meta-analysis was performed.
METHODS
For this, the Preferred-Reporting-Items-for-Systematic-review-and-Meta-Analysis/PRISMA-guidelines were conducted and Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Scopus and The Cochrane Library were screened for relevant studies.
RESULTS
8 retrospective and 3 prospective studies were included in the systematic review. No difference was found between patients with or without intraperitoneal drains in mortality (Risk-ratio/RR 0.74, 95%-Confidence-interval/CI: 0.47-1.18, p = 0.20), in Grade B/C-postoperative pancreatic fistulas/POPF (RR 1.31, 95%-CI: 0.74-2.32, p = 0.35), in intraabdominal abscesses (RR 0.92, 95%-CI: 0.65-1.30, p = 0.64), in surgical site infection (RR 1.20, 95%-CI: 0.85-1.70, p = 0.30), in delayed gastric emptying (RR 1.11, 95%-CI: 0.65-1.90, p = 0.71), in postoperative haemorrhages (RR 0.92 95%-CI: 0.63-1.33, p = 0.65), in reoperations (RR 1.15, 95%-CI: 0.87-1.52, p = 0.33), or in radiological reinterventions (RR 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.69-1.31, p = 0.76). The risk for overall morbidity (RR 1.16, 95%-CI: 1.04-1.29, p = 0.008), of any POPF (RR 2.15, 95%-CI: 1.52-3.04, p < 0.0001) and of readmissions (RR 1.23, 95%-CI: 1.04-1.45, p = 0.01) was increased for patients with intraperitoneal drain compared to patients without following pancreatic resection.
CONCLUSION
Regarding the controversial results of the recent prospective, randomized trials this meta-analysis revealed no difference in mortality but an increased risk for postoperative morbidity, POPF and readmissions of patients with intraperitoneal drains after pancreatic resection. Therefore, the indication for intraperitoneal drains should be critically weighed in patients undergoing pancreatic resections.
Topics: Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Drainage; Humans; Pancreas; Peritoneal Cavity; Postoperative Complications; Reoperation
PubMed: 29534868
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2018.02.013 -
Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy &... Aug 2017Currently, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is regarded as a safe and effective surgical approach for lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. This review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic and Open Distal Pancreatectomy of Nonductal Adenocarcinomatous Pancreatic Tumor (NDACPT) in the Pancreatic Body and Tail.
BACKGROUND
Currently, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is regarded as a safe and effective surgical approach for lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. This review examined the evidence from published data of comparative studies of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy of nonductal adenocarcinomatous pancreatic tumor in pancreatic body and tail.
METHODS
A systematic review of the studies comparing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy was conducted. Comparative studies published between January 1996 and June 2016 were included. Studies were selected on the basis of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. These 2 techniques were compared regarding several outcomes of interest, which were divided into preoperative, operative, postoperative, and pathologic characteristics, postoperative biomarker, and hospital stay cost. Sensitivity and subgroup analysis partially confirmed the robustness of these data.
RESULTS
Ten comparative case-control studies involving 712 patients (53.7% laparoscopic and 46.3% open), who underwent a distal pancreatectomy were included. The results favored laparoscopy with regard to intraoperative blood loss (P=0.0001), the rate of blood transfusion (P=0.02), total hospital stay (P=0.004), postoperative hospital stay (P<0.0001), overall morbidity (P=0.0002), the rate of wound infection (P=0.05), time to initial feeds (P<0.0001), first flatus time (P=0.008), duration of pain-killer intake (P=0.0003), and C-reactive protein on postoperative day 1 (P=<0.0001). In the subgroup analysis, excluding western country studies, operation time changed to have a statistically significant difference between these 2 groups (P=0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Laparoscopic resection results in improved operative and postoperative outcomes compared with open surgery according to the results of the present meta-analysis. It may be a safe and feasible option for nonductal adenocarcinomatous pancreatic tumor patients in pancreatic body and tail. However, randomized controlled trials should be undertaken to confirm the relevance of these findings.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Feasibility Studies; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28520652
DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000416 -
Digestive Endoscopy : Official Journal... Sep 2017With increased availability of imaging technology, detection of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) is on the rise. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cystic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND AND AIM
With increased availability of imaging technology, detection of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) is on the rise. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) improves the diagnosis accuracy of PCL. Systematic evaluation of morbidity and mortality associated with EUS-FNA for PCL has not been carried out. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of morbidity and mortality associated with EUS-FNA.
METHODS
A literature search for relevant English-language articles was conducted on PubMed and EMBASE databases. Main outcome measures for this analysis were adverse effects of diagnostic EUS-FNA, and the associated morbidity and mortality, in patients with PCL.
RESULTS
Forty studies, with a combined subject population of 5124 patients with PCL, satisfied the inclusion criteria. Overall morbidity as a result of adverse events of EUS-FNA was 2.66% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.84-3.62%), and the associated mortality was 0.19% (95% CI: 0.09-0.32%). Common post-procedure adverse events included pancreatitis 0.92% (95% CI: 0.63-1.28%), hemorrhage 0.69% (95% CI: 0.42-1.02%), pain 0.49% (95% CI: 0.27-0.79%), infection 0.44% (95% CI: 0.27-0.66%), desaturation 0.23% (95% CI: 0.12-0.38%) and perforation 0.21% (95% CI: 0.11-0.36%). There was no peritoneal seeding in our study. Incidence of adverse events associated with prophylactic periprocedural antibiotic use was 2.77% (95% CI: 1.87-3.85%).
CONCLUSIONS
EUS-FNA is a safe procedure for diagnosis of PCL and is associated with a relatively low incidence of adverse events. Most adverse events were mild, self-limiting, and did not require medical intervention.
Topics: Biopsy, Needle; Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration; Female; Humans; Immunohistochemistry; Male; Morbidity; Pancreatic Cyst; Patient Safety; Risk Assessment; Sensitivity and Specificity; Survival Rate
PubMed: 28218999
DOI: 10.1111/den.12851 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.
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
For the initial version of this review, we searched the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 April 2015), Embase (1980 to 9 April 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 9 April 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 9 April 2015). For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2015 to 28 August 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled trials that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We identified five trials (of 985 participants) which met our inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently identified the trials 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 (CI). For all analyses, we employed the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Drain use versus no drain useWe included three trials involving 711 participants who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 358) and the no drainage group (N = 353) after pancreatic surgery. There was inadequate evidence to establish the effect of drains on mortality at 30 days (2.2% with drains versus 3.4% no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; three studies; low-quality evidence), mortality at 90 days (2.9% versus 11.6%; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.10; one study; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal infection (7.3% versus 8.5%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.20; three studies; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (12.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; three studies; low-quality evidence), morbidity (64.8% versus 62.0%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.16; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (11.5% versus 9.1%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.52; three studies). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.6%). Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain), intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05), morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29). The active drain group was associated with shorter length of hospital stay (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay) than in the passive drain group. The quality of evidence was low, or very low. Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (0% for both groups) or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% with early drain removal versus 1.8% with late drain removal; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01). The early drain removal group was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications (38.5% versus 61.4%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs) than in the late drain removal group. The quality of evidence for each of the outcomes was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is unclear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the reduction of mortality and postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. In case of drain insertion, low-quality evidence suggests that active drainage may reduce hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.
Topics: Abdomen; Device Removal; Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27764898
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub3 -
The Journal of Pediatrics Dec 2016To systematically review risks and summarize reported complication rates associated with the performance of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review risks and summarize reported complication rates associated with the performance of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in children during the past 2 decades.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science from January 1995 to January 2016 was conducted for observational studies published in English. Studies reporting ERCP complications in patients <21 years without history of liver transplant or cholecystectomy were included. A summary estimate of the proportion of children who experienced complications following ERCP was derived via a random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies involving 2612 children and 3566 procedures were included. Subjects' ages ranged from 3 days to 21 years. Procedures were performed for biliary (54%), pancreatic (38%), and other (8%) indications; 56% of ERCPs were interventional. The pooled complication rate was 6% (95% CI 4%- 8%). Procedural complications included post-ERCP pancreatitis (166, 4.7%), bleeding (22, 0.6%), and infections (27, 0.8%). The pooled estimate of post-ERCP pancreatitis was 3% (95% CI 0.02-0.05), and other complications were 1% (95% CI 0.02-0.05). In the subgroup with neonatal cholestasis, the pooled complication rate was 3% (95% CI 0.01-0.07). Adult and pediatric gastroenterologists and surgeons performed the ERCPs. Available data limited the ability to report differences between pediatric-trained and other endoscopists.
CONCLUSIONS
Complications associated with pediatric ERCP range widely in severity and are reported inconsistently. Our review suggests 6% of pediatric ERCPs have complications. Further studies that use systematic and standardized methodologies are needed to determine the frequency and risk factors for ERCP-related complications.
Topics: Child; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Humans; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 27663215
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.08.046 -
Pancreas Jul 2016Previous studies that investigated the association between body mass index (BMI) and pancreatectomy outcomes have produced conflicting conclusions. We conducted this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Previous studies that investigated the association between body mass index (BMI) and pancreatectomy outcomes have produced conflicting conclusions. We conducted this meta-analysis to assess the association between them.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases up to December 28, 2014. Patients were divided into high-BMI group (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m) and normal-BMI group (BMI < 25 kg/m). Postoperative and intraoperative outcomes were evaluated. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were performed to evaluate any factors accountable for the heterogeneity. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model.
RESULTS
We included 22 studies involving 8994 patients. Patients in the high-BMI group had significantly increased postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (odds ratio [OR],1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-2.67), delayed gastric emptying rate (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.15-2.29), wound infection rate (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.07-1.93), operation time (mean difference [MD],15; 95% CI, 13.40-16.60), blood loss (MD, 270.71; 95% CI, 248.93-292.49), and length of hospital stay (MD, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.51-4.24). For modest heterogeneity in postoperative pancreatic fistula, regional distribution tended to be the contributor.
CONCLUSIONS
High BMI not only increased the surgical difficulty but also decreased the surgical safety for pancreatectomy.
Topics: Body Mass Index; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Wound Infection
PubMed: 27295531
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000525 -
Journal of Investigative Surgery : the... Jun 2016The reconstruction of the pancreas after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a crucial factor in preventing postoperative complications as pancreatic anastomosis failure is... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The reconstruction of the pancreas after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a crucial factor in preventing postoperative complications as pancreatic anastomosis failure is associated with a high morbidity rate and contributes to prolonged hospitalization and mortality. Several techniques have been described for the reconstruction of pancreatic digestive continuity in the attempt to minimize the risk of a pancreatic fistula. The aim of this study was to compare the results of pancreaticogastrostomy and pancreaticojejunostomy after PD.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to January 2015 comparing patients with pancreaticogastrostomy (PG group) versus pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ group). Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using either the fixed-effect or the random-effect model.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs describing 1,211 patients were identified for inclusion in the study. The meta-analysis shows that the PG group had a significantly lower incidence rate of postoperative pancreatic fistulas [OR 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.46-0.86), p = .003], intra-abdominal abscesses [OR 0.53 (95% CI, 0.33-0.85), p = .009] and length of hospital stay [MD -1.62; (95% CI 2.63-0.61), p = .002] than the PJ group, while biliary fistula, mortality, morbidity, rate of delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, and bleeding did not differ between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggests that the most effective treatment for reconstruction of pancreatic continuity after pancreatoduodenectomy is pancreaticogastrostomy. However, the advantage of the latter could potentially be demonstrated through further RCTs, including only patients at high risk of developing pancreatic fistulas.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Anastomosis, Surgical; Anastomotic Leak; Gastrostomy; Humans; Jejunum; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Stomach; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26682701
DOI: 10.3109/08941939.2015.1093047 -
Transplantation May 2015Depression and anxiety are common mental health problems in transplant populations. There is mixed evidence concerning whether they increase morbidity and mortality... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Depression and anxiety are common mental health problems in transplant populations. There is mixed evidence concerning whether they increase morbidity and mortality risks after transplantation. If such associations exist, additional risk reduction strategies may be needed.
METHODS
Four bibliographic databases were searched from 1981 through September 2014 for studies prospectively examining whether depression or anxiety (determined with diagnostic evaluations or standardized symptom scales) affected risk for posttransplant mortality, graft loss, acute graft rejection, chronic rejection, cancer, infection, and rehospitalization.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies (10 heart, total n = 1738; 6 liver, n = 1063; 5 kidney, n = 49515; 4 lung, n = 584; 1 pancreas, n = 80; 1 mixed recipient sample, n = 205) were identified. In each, depression and/or anxiety were typically measured before or early after transplantation. Follow-up for outcomes was a median of 5.8 years (range, 0.50-18.0). Depression increased the relative risk (RR) of mortality by 65% (RR, 1.65; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.34-2.05; 20 studies). Meta-regression indicated that risk was stronger in studies that did (vs did not) control for potential confounders (P = .032). Risk was unaffected by type of transplant or other study characteristics. Depression increased death-censored graft loss risk (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.26, 3 studies). Depression was not associated with other morbidities (each morbidity was assessed in 1-4 studies). Anxiety did not significantly increase mortality risk (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.85-2.27, 6 studies) or morbidity risks (assessed in single studies).
CONCLUSIONS
Depression increases risk for posttransplant mortality. Few studies considered morbidities; the depression-graft loss association suggests that linkages with morbidities deserve greater attention. Depression screening and treatment may be warranted, although whether these activities would reduce posttransplant mortality requires study.
Topics: Anxiety; Communicable Diseases; Depression; Female; Graft Rejection; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Odds Ratio; Organ Transplantation; Patient Readmission; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26492128
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000000901