-
Epidemiology and Health 2021Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are rare but highly fatal. Although the etiology of BTC is poorly understood, gallstones are proposed to be a major risk factor. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are rare but highly fatal. Although the etiology of BTC is poorly understood, gallstones are proposed to be a major risk factor. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the associations between gallstone characteristics and BTC risk.
METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases and systematically reviewed cohort and case-control studies published before April 9, 2018. All the included studies reported appropriate risk estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between the presence, size, number, or duration of gallstones and the risk of BTC, including gallbladder cancer (GBC), extrahepatic bile duct cancer (EBDC), and ampulla of Vater cancer (AOVC). Summary odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted to inspect sources of potential heterogeneity, and the Egger test was performed to assess publication bias.
RESULTS
Seven cohort studies and 23 case-control studies in Asian, European, and American populations were included. The presence of gallstones was associated with an increased risk of BTC (OR, 4.38; 95% CI, 3.23 to 5.93; I2=91.2%), GBC (OR, 7.26; 95% CI, 4.33 to 12.18), EBDC (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 2.24 to 4.50), and AOVC (OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.33 to 8.11). Gallstone size (>1 vs. <1 cm; OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.10 to 3.22) was significantly associated with the risk of GBC.
CONCLUSIONS
Gallstone characteristics, such as presence, size, and number, are associated with an increased risk of BTC. However, significantly high heterogeneity in the meta-analyses is a limitation of this study.
Topics: Biliary Tract Neoplasms; Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Gallstones; Humans; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 33541011
DOI: 10.4178/epih.e2021011 -
The British Journal of Surgery Oct 2023Previous studies have reported conflicting results of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis on infectious complications after pancreatoduodenectomy. This study evaluated the...
BACKGROUND
Previous studies have reported conflicting results of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis on infectious complications after pancreatoduodenectomy. This study evaluated the effect of prolonged antibiotics on surgical-site infections (SSIs) after pancreatoduodenectomy.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken of SSIs in patients with perioperative (within 24 h) versus prolonged antibiotic (over 24 h) prophylaxis after pancreatoduodenectomy. SSIs were classified as organ/space infections or superficial SSI within 30 days after surgery. ORs were calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.
RESULTS
Ten studies were included in the qualitative analysis, of which 8 reporting on 1170 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. The duration of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis varied between 2 and 10 days after surgery. Four studies reporting on 782 patients showed comparable organ/space infection rates in patients receiving perioperative and prolonged antibiotics (OR 1.35, 95 per cent c.i. 0.94 to 1.93). However, among patients with preoperative biliary drainage (5 studies reporting on 577 patients), organ/space infection rates were lower with prolonged compared with perioperative antibiotics (OR 2.09, 1.43 to 3.07). Three studies (633 patients) demonstrated comparable superficial SSI rates between patients receiving perioperative versus prolonged prophylaxis (OR 1.54, 0.97 to 2.44), as well as in patients with preoperative biliary drainage in 4 studies reporting on 431 patients (OR 1.60, 0.89 to 2.88).
CONCLUSION
Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with fewer organ/space infection in patients who undergo preoperative biliary drainage. However, the optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis after pancreatoduodenectomy remains to be determined and warrants confirmation in an RCT.
PubMed: 37440361
DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znad213 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Oct 2022Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), in surgically altered anatomy (SAA), can be challenging and the optimal technique selection remains debatable.... (Review)
Review
Comparison between Enteroscopy-, Laparoscopy- and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), in surgically altered anatomy (SAA), can be challenging and the optimal technique selection remains debatable. Most common foregut interventions resulting to this burden consist of Billroth II gastrectomy, Whipple surgery and Roux-en-Y anastomoses, including gastric by-pass. This systematic review, with meta-analysis, aimed to compare the rates of successful enteroscope-assisted (EA)-, endosonography-directed transgastric- (EDGE), and laparoscopy-assisted (LA)-ERCP.
METHODS
A systematic research (Medline) was performed for relative studies, through January 2022. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as approaching the ampulla site. Secondary outcomes included the desired duct cannulation, successful therapeutic manipulations, and complication rates. We performed meta-analyses of pooled data, and subgroup analysis considering the EA-ERCP subtypes (spiral-, double and single balloon-enteroscope). Pooled rates are reported as percentages with 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CIs).
RESULTS
Seventy-six studies were included (3569 procedures). Regarding primary outcome, EA-ERCP was the least effective [87.3% (95%CI: 85.3-89.4); I: 91.0%], whereas EDGE and LA-ERCP succeeded in 97.9% (95%CI: 96.4-99.4; I: 0%) and 99.1% (95%CI: 98.6-99.7; I: 0%), respectively. Similarly, duct cannulation and therapeutic success rates were 74.7% (95%CI: 71.3-78.0; I: 86.9%) and 69.1% (95%CI: 65.3-72.9; I: 91.8%) after EA-ERCP, 98% (95%CI: 96.5-99.6; I: 0%) and 97.9% (95%CI: 96.3-99.4) after EDGE, and 98.6% (95%CI: 97.9-99.2; I: 0%) and 98.5% (95%CI: 97.8-99.2; I: 0%) after LA-ERCP, respectively. The noticed high heterogeneity in EA-ERCP results probably reflects the larger number of included studies, the different enteroscopy modalities and the variety of surgical interventions. Comparisons revealed the superiority of LA-ERCP and EDGE over EA-ERCP ( ≤ 0.001) for all success-related outcomes, though LA-ERCP and EDGE were comparable ( ≥ 0.43). ERCP with spiral-enteroscope was inferior to balloon-enteroscope, while the type of the balloon-enteroscope did not affect the results. Most adverse events were recorded after LA-ERCP [15.1% (95%CI: 9.40-20.8); I: 87.1%], and EDGE [13.1% (95%CI: 7.50-18.8); I: 48.2%], significantly differing from EA-ERCP [5.7% (95%CI: 4.50-6.80); ≤ 0.04; I: 64.2%].
CONCLUSIONS
LA-ERCP and EDGE were associated with higher technical, cannulation, and therapeutic success compared to EA-ERCP, though accompanied with more adverse events.
PubMed: 36295081
DOI: 10.3390/life12101646 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2023The best approach for treating benign or low-grade malignant lesions localized in the pancreatic neck or body remains debatable. Conventional pancreatoduodenectomy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The best approach for treating benign or low-grade malignant lesions localized in the pancreatic neck or body remains debatable. Conventional pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy (DP) are associated with a risk of impairment of pancreatic function at long-term follow-up. With advances in technology and surgical skills, the use of central pancreatectomy (CP) has gradually increased.
OBJECTIVES
The objective was to compare the safety, feasibility, and short-term and long-term clinical benefits of CP and DP in matched cases.
METHODS
The PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched to identify studies published from database inception to February 2022 that compared CP and DP. This meta-analysis was performed using R software.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies matched the selection criteria, including 774 CP and 1713 DP cases. CP was significantly associated with longer operative time ( P <0.0001), less blood loss ( P <0.01), overall and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula ( P <0.0001), postoperative hemorrhage ( P <0.0001), reoperation ( P =0.0196), delayed gastric emptying ( P =0.0096), increased hospital stay ( P =0.0002), intra-abdominal abscess or effusion ( P =0.0161), higher morbidity ( P <0.0001) and severe morbidity ( P <0.0001) but with a significantly lower incidence of overall endocrine and exocrine insufficiency ( P <0.01), and new-onset and worsening diabetes mellitus ( P <0.0001) than DP.
CONCLUSIONS
CP should be considered as an alternative to DP in selected cases such as without pancreatic disease, length of the residual distal pancreas is more than 5 cm, branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula after adequate evaluation.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Retrospective Studies; Pancreas; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37300889
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000326 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology May 2014Improvements in the medical and pharmacological management of liver transplantation (LT) recipients have led to a better long-term outcome and extension of the... (Review)
Review
Improvements in the medical and pharmacological management of liver transplantation (LT) recipients have led to a better long-term outcome and extension of the indications for this procedure. Liver tumors are relevant to LT; however, the use of LT to treat malignancies remains a debated issue because the high risk of recurrence. In this review we considered LT for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), liver metastases (LM) and other rare tumors. We reviewed the literature, focusing on the past 10 years. The highly selected Milan criteria of LT for HCC (single nodule < 5 cm or up to 3 nodules < 3 cm) have been recently extended by a group from the University of S. Francisco (1 lesion < 6.5 cm or up to 3 lesions < 4.5 cm) with satisfying results in terms of recurrence-free survival and the "up-to-seven criteria". Moreover, using these criteria, other transplant groups have recently developed downstaging protocols, including surgical or loco-regional treatments of HCC, which have increased the post-operative survival of recipients. CCA may be treated by LT in patients who cannot undergo liver resection because of underlying liver disease or for anatomical technical challenges. A well-defined protocol of chemoirradiation and staging laparotomy before LT has been developed by the Mayo Clinic, which has resulted in long term disease-free survival comparable to other indications. LT for LM has also been investigated by multicenter studies. It offers a real benefit for metastases from neuroendocrine tumors that are well differentiated and when a major extrahepatic resection is not required. If LT is an option in these selected cases, liver metastases from colorectal cancer is still a borderline indication because data concerning the disease-free survival are still lacking. Hepatoblastoma and hemangioendothelioma represent rare primary tumors for which LT is often the only possible and effective cure because of the frequent multifocal, intrahepatic nature of the disease. LT is a very promising procedure for both primary and secondary liver malignancies; however, it needs an accurate evaluation of the costs and benefits for each indication to balance the chances of cure with actual organ availability.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Cholangiocarcinoma; Disease-Free Survival; Graft Survival; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Liver Transplantation; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24833864
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i18.5345 -
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia... Jun 2020Endoscopic removal of common bile duct stones has a high success rate ranging from 85% to 95%. Bile duct stones >15 mm are difficult and frequently require lithotripsy.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Endoscopic removal of common bile duct stones has a high success rate ranging from 85% to 95%. Bile duct stones >15 mm are difficult and frequently require lithotripsy. Peroral cholangioscopy (POC) allows lithotripsy with similar success rates.
AIM
To determine the efficacy and safety of cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy used in the treatment of difficult to remove bile duct stones vs. conventional therapy.
METHODS
Search was based in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, Lilacs/Bireme. Studies enrolling patients referred for the removal of difficult bile duct stones via POC were considered eligible. Two analyses were carried out separately, one included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and another observational studies.
RESULTS
Forty-six studies were selected (3 RTC and 43 observational). In the analysis there was no statistical significant difference between successful endoscopic clearance (RD=-0.02 CI: -0.17, 0.12/I²=0%), mean fluoroscopy time (MD=-0.14 CI -1.60, 1.32/I²=21%) and adverse events rates (RD=-0.06 CI: -0.14, 0.02/I²=0%), by contrast, the mean procedure time favored conventional therapy with statistical significance (MD=27.89 CI: 16.68, 39.10/I²=0%). In observational studies, the successful endoscopic clearance rate was 88.29% (CI95: 86.9%-90.7%), the first session successful endoscopic clearance rate was 72.7 % (CI95: 69.9%-75.3%), the mean procedure time was 47.50±6 min for session and the number of sessions to clear bile duct was 1.5±0.18. The adverse event rate was 8.7% (CI95: 7%-10.9%).
CONCLUSIONS
For complex common bile duct stones, cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy has a success rate that is similar to traditional ERCP techniques in terms of therapeutic success, adverse event rate and means fluoroscopy time. Conventional ERCP methods have a shorter mean procedure time.
Topics: Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Gallstones; Humans; Lithotripsy; Lithotripsy, Laser; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32609255
DOI: 10.1590/0102-672020190001e1491 -
Medicine Mar 2021So far, there was no consensus regarding balloon dilation time in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD). Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
So far, there was no consensus regarding balloon dilation time in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD). Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the stone removal and overall complication rates of dilation of short and long duration with EPBD.
METHODS
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library), Web of Science, EMBASE Databases, and PubMed were searched from their inception to December 1, 2019 for all articles regarding balloon dilation time in EPBD for removal of bile duct stones. The data were extracted and the methodology quality was assessed. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 software.
RESULTS
Four studies involving a total of 1553 patients were included, 918 in the short dilation group and 635 in the long dilation group. The results of meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the 2 different dilation groups in the complete stone removal in randomized controlled trails (RCTs) group (P = .10) and non-RCTs group (P = 0.45), mechanical lithotripsy requirement (RCTs: P = .92; non-RCTs: P = .47), pancreatitis (RCTs: P = .48; non-RCTs: P = .45), bleeding (RCTs: P = .95; non-RCTs: P = .60), infection of biliary (RCTs: P = .58; non-RCTs: P = .29), perforation (RCTs: P = .32; non-RCTs: P = .37).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review suggests that there no significant difference in the efficacy and safety of dilation of short and long duration for removal of bile duct stones with EPBD.
Topics: Aged; Catheterization; Choledocholithiasis; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dilatation; Female; Humans; Lithotripsy; Male; Middle Aged; Operative Time; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33725940
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024735 -
Medicine Sep 2018Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is the result of the ongoing trend to minimally invasive of laparoscopy, but some surgeons thought that the SILC can... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is the result of the ongoing trend to minimally invasive of laparoscopy, but some surgeons thought that the SILC can increase the risk of bile duct injure or bile spillage, and the single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) can overcome the drawbacks of SILC. Some articles described that the SIRC had longer operative time and more cost than SILC. The advantages and disadvantages of SIRC have still not been extensively studied. We aimed to investigate the outcomes of SIRC compared to SILC and evaluate the safety and feasibility of SIRC.
METHODS
To find relevant studies, the electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched to seek information in English literature from 2011 to 2017. Studies comparing SIRC to SILC, for any indication, were included in the analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed with RevMan Version 5.3.
RESULTS
Six comparative studies (n = 633 patients) were included in our analysis. The data showed that the SIRC and SILC had equivalent outcomes for operative time [mean difference (MD) = 17.32, 95% confidence interval (CI): -8.93-43.57, P = .20], intraoperative complications [odd ratio (OR) = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.17-1.39, P = .18], postoperative complications (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.21-1.86, P = .39), hospital stay (MD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.21-0.19, P = .90), readmissions rate (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.09-5.63, P = .74), and conversion rate (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.14-1.96, P = .33), but total cost was statistically significant (MD = 3.7, 95% CI: 3.61-3.79, P < .00001).
CONCLUSION
SIRC is a safe and feasible procedure for cholecystectomy, and the operative time is same as SILC, but the total cost of SIRC is significantly higher than SILC.
Topics: Cholecystectomy; Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 30200093
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012103 -
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 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021To compare perioperative and oncological outcomes of pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after laparoscopic open pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD OPD), we performed a...
BACKGROUND
To compare perioperative and oncological outcomes of pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after laparoscopic open pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD OPD), we performed a meta-analysis of currently available propensity score matching studies and large-scale retrospective cohorts to compare the safety and overall effect of LPD to OPD for patients with PDAC.
METHODS
A meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO and the registration number is CRD42021250395. PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before March 2021. Data on operative times, blood loss, 30-day mortality, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and oncologic outcomes (R0 resection, lymph node dissection, overall survival, and long-term survival) were subjected to meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Overall, we identified 10 retrospective studies enrolling a total of 11,535 patients (1,514 and 10,021 patients underwent LPD and OPD, respectively). The present meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in overall survival time, 1-year survival, 2-year survival, 30-day mortality, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, POPF, DGE, PPH, and lymph node dissection between the LPD and OPD groups. Nevertheless, compared with the OPD group, LPD resulted in significantly higher rate of R0 resection (OR: 1.22; 95% CI 1.06-1.40; = 0.005), longer operative time (WMD: 60.01 min; 95% CI 23.23-96.79; = 0.001), lower Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III rate ( = 0.02), less blood loss (WMD: -96.49 ml; 95% CI -165.14 to -27.83; = 0.006), lower overall morbidity rate (OR: 0.65; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.85; = 0.002), shorter LOS (MD = -2.73; 95% CI -4.44 to -1.03; = 0.002), higher 4-year survival time ( = 0.04), 5-year survival time ( = 0.001), and earlier time to starting adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery (OR: -10.86; 95% CI -19.42 to -2.30; = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
LPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD for patients with PDAC, and compared with OPD, LPD seemed to provide a similar OS.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.
PubMed: 34778064
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.749140