-
Cancers Sep 2023Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of postoperative pancreatic insufficiency. The robotic platform is increasingly being used for these procedures. We sought to evaluate robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy and assess its complication profile and efficacy.
METHODS
This systematic review consisted of all studies on robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy (central pancreatectomy, duodenum-preserving partial pancreatic head resection, enucleation, and uncinate resection) published between January 2001 and December 2022 in PubMed and Embase.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies were included in this review ( = 788). Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy is being performed worldwide for benign or indolent pancreatic lesions. When compared to the open approach, robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomies led to a longer average operative time, shorter length of stay, and higher estimated intraoperative blood loss. Postoperative pancreatic fistula is common, but severe complications requiring intervention are exceedingly rare. Long-term complications such as endocrine and exocrine insufficiency are nearly nonexistent.
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy appears to have a higher risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula but is rarely associated with severe or long-term complications. Careful patient selection is required to maximize benefits and minimize morbidity.
PubMed: 37686648
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15174369 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jun 2015To identify the most effective treatment of duodenal stump fistula (DSF) after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. (Review)
Review
AIM
To identify the most effective treatment of duodenal stump fistula (DSF) after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CILEA Archive, BMJ Clinical Evidence and UpToDate databases were analyzed. Three hundred eighty-eight manuscripts were retrieved and analyzed and thirteen studies published between 1988 and 2014 were finally selected according to the inclusion criteria, for a total of 145 cases of DSF, which represented our group of study. Only patients with DSF after gastrectomy for malignancy were selected. Data about patients' characteristics, type of treatment, short and long-term outcomes were extracted and analyzed.
RESULTS
In the 13 studies different types of treatment were proposed: conservative approach, surgical approach, percutaneous approach and endoscopic approach (3 cases). The overall mortality rate was 11.7% for the entire cohort. The more frequent complications were sepsis, abscesses, peritonitis, bleeding, pneumonia and multi-organ failure. Conservative approach was performed in 6 studies for a total of 79 patients, in patients with stable general condition, often associated with percutaneous approach. A complete resolution of the leakage was achieved in 92.3% of these patients, with a healing time ranging from 17 to 71 d. Surgical approach included duodenostomy, duodeno-jejunostomy, pancreatoduodenectomy and the use of rectus muscle flap. In-hospital stay of patients who underwent relaparotomy ranged from 1 to 1035 d. The percutaneous approach included drainage of abscesses or duodenostomy (32 cases) and percutaneous biliary diversion (13 cases). The median healing time in this group was 43 d.
CONCLUSION
Conservative approach is the treatment of choice, eventually associated with percutaneus drainage. Surgical approach should be reserved for severe cases or when conservative approaches fail.
Topics: Anastomotic Leak; Drainage; Duodenal Diseases; Duodenum; Gastrectomy; Humans; Intestinal Fistula; Length of Stay; Reoperation; Stomach Neoplasms; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 26140005
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i24.7571 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery May 2023Secondary aortoduodenal fistulae (SADF) are uncommon but life-threatening conditions that occur as complications of aortic reconstructive surgery. Data on the mortality... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Secondary aortoduodenal fistulae (SADF) are uncommon but life-threatening conditions that occur as complications of aortic reconstructive surgery. Data on the mortality and morbidity of procedures associated with SADF remain scarce.
METHODS
Comprehensive literature search was conducted on the MedLine, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Knowledge databases for cases of SADF. Data regarding patient demographics, fistula anatomy and treatment interventions performed were extracted for further analysis.
RESULTS
The study pool consisted of 127 case reports, 28 case series and 1 retrospective study published between 1973 and 2021. A total of 189 patients were operated for SADF. Among the 189 patients, 141 patients (74.6%) had aortic graft excision, 26 (13.8%) aortic primary repair, and 22 (11.6%) EVAR. Although patients undergoing EVAR were older with higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, compared with patients who had graft excision and primary aortic repair these differences were not statistically significant (P = .12 and P = .22, respectively). Primary bowel repair was performed in 145 patients (76.7%), duodenectomy in 25 (13.2%), and no bowel repair in 19 (10.1%). Additional omentoplasty was performed in 65 patients (34.6%). Mortality was comparable with respect to the type of aortic and bowel repair, with no statistically significant differences recorded (P = .54 and P = .77, respectively). Omentoplasty significantly decreased the risk of death (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.8, P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS
Optimal operative management should address both the aortic and duodenal defects and be complemented with appropriate reconstructive procedures. Endovascular aortic approaches seem feasible in carefully select patients in whom duodenal repair may be omitted.
Topics: Humans; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Retrospective Studies; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endovascular Procedures; Intestinal Fistula; Treatment Outcome; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36343874
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.10.055 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2023Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC).
METHODS
A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group.
CONCLUSIONS
This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Duodenal Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37581763
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03047-4 -
BMC Surgery May 2019Duodenal stump fistula (DSF) remains one of the most serious complications following subtotal or total gastrectomy, as it endangers patient's life. DSF is related to...
BACKGROUND
Duodenal stump fistula (DSF) remains one of the most serious complications following subtotal or total gastrectomy, as it endangers patient's life. DSF is related to high mortality (16-20%) and morbidity (75%) rates. DSF-related morbidity always leads to longer hospitalization times due to medical and surgical complications such as wound infections, intra-abdominal abscesses, intra-abdominal bleeding, acute pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, severe malnutrition, fluids and electrolytes disorders, diffuse peritonitis, and pneumonia. Our systematic review aimed at improving our understanding of such surgical complication, focusing on nonsurgical and surgical DSF management in patients undergoing gastric resection for gastric cancer.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were used to search all related literature.
RESULTS
The 20 included articles covered an approximately 40 years-study period (1979-2017), with a total 294 patient population. DSF diagnosis occurred between the fifth and tenth postoperative day. Main DSF-related complications were sepsis, abdominal abscess, wound infection, pneumonia, and intra-abdominal bleeding. DSF treatment was divided into four categories: conservative (101 cases), endoscopic (4 cases), percutaneous (82 cases), and surgical (157 cases). Length of hospitalization was 21-39 days, ranging from 1 to 1035 days. Healing time was 19-63 days, ranging from 1 to 1035 days. DSF-related mortality rate recorded 18.7%.
CONCLUSIONS
DSF is a rare but potentially lethal complication after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Early DSF diagnosis is crucial in reducing DSF-related morbidity and mortality. Conservative and/or endoscopic/percutaneous treatments is/are the first choice. However, if the patient clinical condition worsens, surgery becomes mandatory and duodenostomy appears to be the most effective surgical procedure.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Duodenal Diseases; Gastrectomy; Humans; Intestinal Fistula; Peritonitis; Postoperative Complications; Stomach Neoplasms; Wound Healing
PubMed: 31138190
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-019-0520-x -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Nov 2023Pancreatic benign, cystic, and neuroendocrine neoplasms are increasingly detected and recommended for surgical treatment. In multiorgan resection pancreatoduodenectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic benign, cystic, and neuroendocrine neoplasms are increasingly detected and recommended for surgical treatment. In multiorgan resection pancreatoduodenectomy or parenchyma-sparing, local extirpation is a challenge for decision-making regarding surgery-related early and late postoperative morbidity.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Libraries were searched for studies reporting early surgery-related complications following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and duodenum-preserving total (DPPHRt) or partial (DPPHRp) pancreatic head resection for benign tumors. Thirty-four cohort studies comprising data from 1099 patients were analyzed. In total, 654 patients underwent DPPHR and 445 patients PD for benign tumors. This review and meta-analysis does not need ethical approval.
RESULTS
Comparing DPPHRt and PD, the need for blood transfusion (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10-0.41, p<0.01), re-intervention for serious surgery-related complications (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31-0.73, p<0.001), and re-operation for severe complications (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26-0.95, p=0.04) were significantly less frequent following DPPHRt. Pancreatic fistula B+C (19.0 to 15.3%, p=0.99) and biliary fistula (6.3 to 4.3%; p=0.33) were in the same range following PD and DPPHRt. In-hospital mortality after DPPHRt was one of 350 patients (0.28%) and after PD eight of 445 patients (1.79%) (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10-1.09, p=0.07). Following DPPHRp, there was no mortality among the 192 patients.
CONCLUSION
DPPHR for benign pancreatic tumors is associated with significantly fewer surgery-related, serious, and severe postoperative complications and lower in-hospital mortality compared to PD. Tailored use of DPPHRt or DPPHRp contributes to a reduction of surgery-related complications. DPPHR has the potential to replace PD for benign tumors and premalignant cystic and neuroendocrine neoplasms of the pancreatic head.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreas; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Duodenum; Neuroendocrine Tumors; Pancreatic Cyst
PubMed: 37670106
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-023-05789-4 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jul 2018Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare LPD with OPD for these malignancies regarding short-term surgical and long-term survival outcomes.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted before March 2018 to identify comparative studies in regard to outcomes of both LPD and OPD for the treatment of pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancies. Morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), mortality, operative time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization, retrieved lymph nodes, and survival outcomes were compared.
RESULTS
Among eleven identified studies, 1196 underwent LPD, and 8247 were operated through OPD. The pooled data showed that LPD was associated with less morbidity (OR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.41~ 0.78, P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD = - 372.96 ml, 95% CI, - 507.83~ - 238.09 ml, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stays (WMD = - 197.49 ml, 95% CI, - 304.62~ - 90.37 ml, P < 0.01), and comparable POPF (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.59~ 1.24, P = 0.40), and overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.93~ 1.14, P = 0.54) compared to OPD. Operative time was longer in LPD (WMD = 87.68 min; 95%CI: 27.05~ 148.32, P < 0.01), whereas R0 rate tended to be higher in LPD (OR = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.00~ 1.37, P = 0.05) and there tended to be more retrieved lymph nodes in LPD (WMD = 1.15, 95%CI: -0.16~ 2.47, P = 0.08), but these differences failed to reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS
LPD can be performed as safe and effective as OPD for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy with respect to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LPD is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity and may serve as a promising alternative to OPD in selected individuals in the future.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Lymphatic Metastasis; Operative Time; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 29969999
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-018-0830-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Surgical excision by removal of the head of the pancreas to decompress the obstructed ducts is one of the treatment options for people with symptomatic chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical excision by removal of the head of the pancreas to decompress the obstructed ducts is one of the treatment options for people with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis. Surgical excision of the head of the pancreas can be performed by excision of the duodenum along with the head of the pancreas (pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD)) or without excision of the duodenum (duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR)). There is currently no consensus on the method of pancreatic head resection in people with chronic pancreatitis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection versus pancreaticoduodenectomy in people with chronic pancreatitis for whom pancreatic resection is considered the main treatment option.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to June 2015 to identify randomised trials. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCT) performed in people with chronic pancreatitis undergoing pancreatic head resection, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), rate ratio (RaR), or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an available-case analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials including 292 participants met the inclusion criteria for the review. After exclusion of 23 participants mainly due to pancreatic cancer or because participants did not receive the planned treatment, a total of 269 participants (with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis involving the head of pancreas and requiring surgery) were randomly assigned to receive DPPHR (135 participants) or PD (134 participants). The trials did not report the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status of the participants. All the trials were single-centre trials and included people with and without obstructive jaundice and people with and without duodenal stenosis but did not report data separately for those with and without jaundice or those with and without duodenal stenosis. The surgical procedures compared in the five trials included DPPHR (Beger or Frey procedures, or wide local excision of the head of the pancreas) and PD (pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy or Whipple procedure). The participants were followed up for various periods of time ranging from one to 15 years. The trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low.The differences in short-term mortality (up to 90 days after surgery) (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.31 to 26.87; 369 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 2/135 (1.5%) versus PD: 0/134 (0%); very low quality evidence) or long-term mortality (maximal follow-up) (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.34; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), medium-term (three months to five years) (only a narrative summary was possible; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), or long-term quality of life (more than five years) (MD 8.45, 95% CI -0.27 to 17.18; 101 participants; 2 studies; low quality evidence), proportion of people with adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.35; 226 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 23/113 (adjusted proportion 20%) versus PD: 41/113 (36.3%); very low quality evidence), number of people with adverse events (RaR 0.95, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.12; 43 participants; 1 study; DPPHR: 12/22 (54.3 events per 100 participants) versus PD: 12/21 (57.1 events per 100 participants); very low quality evidence), proportion of people employed (maximal follow-up) (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.37; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 65/98 (adjusted proportion 69.4%) versus PD: 41/91 (45.1%); low quality evidence), incidence proportion of diabetes mellitus (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.22; 269 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 25/135 (adjusted proportion 18.6%) versus PD: 32/134 (23.9%); very low quality evidence), and prevalence proportion of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 62/98 (adjusted proportion 62.0%) versus PD: 68/91 (74.7%); very low quality evidence) were imprecise. The length of hospital stay appeared to be lower with DPPHR compared to PD and ranged between a reduction of one day and five days in the trials (208 participants; 4 studies; low quality evidence). None of the trials reported short-term quality of life (four weeks to three months), clinically significant pancreatic fistulas, serious adverse events, time to return to normal activity, time to return to work, and pain scores using a visual analogue scale.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low quality evidence suggested that DPPHR may result in shorter hospital stay than PD. Based on low or very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence of any difference in the mortality, adverse events, or quality of life between DPPHR and PD. However, the results were imprecise and further RCTs are required on this topic. Future RCTs comparing DPPHR with PD should report the severity as well as the incidence of postoperative complications and their impact on patient recovery. In such trials, participant and observer blinding should be performed and the analysis should be performed on an intention-to-treat basis to decrease the bias. In addition to the short-term benefits and harms such as mortality, surgery-related complications, quality of life, length of hospital stay, return to normal activity, and return to work, future trials should consider linkage of trial participants to health databases, social databases, and mortality registers to obtain the long-term benefits and harms of the different treatments.
Topics: Duodenum; Humans; Length of Stay; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26837472
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011521.pub2 -
Journal of Pediatric Surgery Sep 2021Surgical site infections (SSI) are a frequent and significant problem understudied in infants operated for abdominal birth defects. Different forms of SSIs exist, namely... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infections (SSI) are a frequent and significant problem understudied in infants operated for abdominal birth defects. Different forms of SSIs exist, namely wound infection, wound dehiscence, anastomotic leakage, post-operative peritonitis and fistula development. These complications can extend hospital stay, surge medical costs and increase mortality. If the incidence was known, it would provide context for clinical decision making and aid future research. Therefore, this review aims to aggregate the available literature on the incidence of different SSIs forms in infants who needed surgery for abdominal birth defects.
METHOD
The electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched in February 2020. Studies describing infectious complications in infants (under three years of age) were considered eligible. Primary outcome was the incidence of SSIs in infants. SSIs were categorized in wound infection, wound dehiscence, anastomotic leakage, postoperative peritonitis, and fistula development. Secondary outcome was the incidence of different forms of SSIs depending on the type of birth defect. Meta-analysis was performed pooling reported incidences in total and per birth defect separately.
RESULTS
154 studies, representing 11,786 patients were included. The overall pooled percentage of wound infections after abdominal birth defect surgery was 6% (95%-CI:0.05-0.07) ranging from 1% (95% CI:0.00-0.05) for choledochal cyst surgery to 10% (95%-CI:0.06-0.15) after gastroschisis surgery. Wound dehiscence occurred in 4% (95%-CI:0.03-0.07) of the infants, ranging from 1% (95%-CI:0.00-0.03) after surgery for duodenal obstruction to 6% (95%-CI:0.04-0.08) after surgery for gastroschisis. Anastomotic leakage had an overall pooled percentage of 3% (95%-CI:0.02-0.05), ranging from 1% (95%-CI:0.00-0.04) after surgery for duodenal obstruction to 14% (95% CI:0.06-0.27) after colon atresia surgery. Postoperative peritonitis and fistula development could not be specified per birth defect and had an overall pooled percentage of 3% (95%-CI:0.01-0.09) and 2% (95%-CI:0.01-0.04).
CONCLUSIONS
This review has systematically shown that SSIs are common after correction for abdominal birth defects and that the distribution of SSI differs between birth defects.
Topics: Abdomen; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 33485614
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021.01.018 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Pancreatoduodenectomy is a surgical procedure used to treat diseases of the pancreatic head and, less often, the duodenum. The most common disease treated is cancer, but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatoduodenectomy is a surgical procedure used to treat diseases of the pancreatic head and, less often, the duodenum. The most common disease treated is cancer, but pancreatoduodenectomy is also used for people with traumatic lesions and chronic pancreatitis. Following pancreatoduodenectomy, the pancreatic stump must be connected with the small bowel where pancreatic juice can play its role in food digestion. Pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) and pancreatogastrostomy (PG) are surgical procedures commonly used to reconstruct the pancreatic stump after pancreatoduodenectomy. Both of these procedures have a non-negligible rate of postoperative complications. Since it is unclear which procedure is better, there are currently no international guidelines on how to reconstruct the pancreatic stump after pancreatoduodenectomy, and the choice is based on the surgeon's personal preference.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pancreaticogastrostomy compared to pancreaticojejunostomy on postoperative pancreatic fistula in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 30 September 2016), Ovid Embase (1974 to 30 September 2016) and CINAHL (1982 to 30 September 2016). We also searched clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) and screened references of eligible articles and systematic reviews on this subject. There were no language or publication date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the clinical outcomes of PJ compared to PG in people undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed descriptive analyses of the included RCTs for the primary (rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula and mortality) and secondary outcomes (length of hospital stay, rate of surgical re-intervention, overall rate of surgical complications, rate of postoperative bleeding, rate of intra-abdominal abscess, quality of life, cost analysis). We used a random-effects model for all analyses. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (using PG as the reference) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as a measure of variability.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs that enrolled a total of 1629 participants. The characteristics of all studies matched the requirements to compare the two types of surgical reconstruction following pancreatoduodenectomy. All studies reported incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (the main complication) and postoperative mortality.Overall, the risk of bias in included studies was high; only one included study was assessed at low risk of bias.There was little or no difference between PJ and PG in overall risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (PJ 24.3%; PG 21.4%; RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.62; 7 studies; low-quality evidence). Inclusion of studies that clearly distinguished clinically significant pancreatic fistula resulted in us being uncertain whether PJ improved the risk of pancreatic fistula when compared with PG (19.3% versus 12.8%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.47; very low-quality evidence). PJ probably has little or no difference from PG in risk of postoperative mortality (3.9% versus 4.8%; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34; moderate-quality evidence).We found low-quality evidence that PJ may differ little from PG in length of hospital stay (MD 1.04 days, 95% CI -1.18 to 3.27; 4 studies, N = 502) or risk of surgical re-intervention (11.6% versus 10.3%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61; 7 studies, N = 1263). We found moderate-quality evidence suggesting little difference between PJ and PG in terms of risk of any surgical complication (46.5% versus 44.5%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18; 9 studies, N = 1513). PJ may slightly improve the risk of postoperative bleeding (9.3% versus 13.8%; RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.93; low-quality evidence; 8 studies, N = 1386), but may slightly worsen the risk of developing intra-abdominal abscess (14.7% versus 8.0%; RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.81; 7 studies, N = 1121; low quality evidence). Only one study reported quality of life (N = 320); PG may improve some quality of life parameters over PJ (low-quality evidence). No studies reported cost analysis data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no reliable evidence to support the use of pancreatojejunostomy over pancreatogastrostomy. Future large international studies may shed new light on this field of investigation.
Topics: Gastrostomy; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28898386
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012257.pub2