-
Surgical Endoscopy Jun 2022The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated systematically. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the outcomes of EUSD in patients with PFC after pancreas surgery and compare it with percutaneous drainage (PCD).
METHODS
PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes EUSD in treatment of PFC after pancreas surgeries, from their inception until January 2022. Two meta-analyses were performed: (A) a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of EUSD (meta-analysis A) and (B) two-arm meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of EUSD and PCD (meta-analysis B). Pooled proportion of the outcomes in meta-analysis A as well as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) in meta-analysis B was calculated to determine the technical and clinical success rates, complications rate, hospital stay, and recurrence rate. ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
The literature search retrieved 610 articles, 25 of which were eligible for inclusion. Included clinical studies comprised reports on 695 patients. Twenty-five studies (477 patients) were included in meta-analysis A and eight studies (356 patients) were included in meta-analysis B. In meta-analysis A, the technical and clinical success rates of EUSD were 94% and 87%, respectively, with post-procedural complications of 14% and recurrence rates of 9%. Meta-analysis B showed comparable technical and clinical success rates as well as complications rates between EUSD and PCD. EUSD showed significantly shorter duration of hospital stay compared to that of patients treated with PCD.
CONCLUSION
EUSD seems to be associated with high technical and clinical success rates, with low rates of procedure-related complications. Although EUSD leads to shorter hospital stay compared to PCD, the certainty of evidence was low in this regard.
Topics: Drainage; Endosonography; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Pancreatic Diseases
PubMed: 35246738
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09137-6 -
Hong Kong Medical Journal = Xianggang... Feb 2016To review the outcome following simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and end-stage renal disease, as well as those... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To review the outcome following simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and end-stage renal disease, as well as those with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and to discuss the applicability of this treatment in this locality.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed by searching the PubMed and Elsevier databases. The search terms used were "simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation", "diabetes", "pancreas transplant" and "SPK". Original and major review articles related to simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation were reviewed. Papers published in English after 1985 were included. Clinical outcomes following transplantation were extracted for comparison between different treatment methods. Outcomes of simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant and other transplantation methods were identified and categorised into patient survival, graft survival, diabetic complications, and quality of life. Patient survivals and graft survivals were also compared.
RESULTS
Currently available clinical evidence shows good outcomes for type 1 diabetes mellitus in terms of patient survival, graft survival, diabetic complications, and quality of life. For type 2 diabetes mellitus, the efficacy and application of the procedure remain controversial but the outcomes are possibly comparable with those in type 1 diabetes mellitus.
CONCLUSIONS
Simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation is a technically demanding procedure that is associated with significant complications, and it should be regarded as a 'last resort' treatment in patients whose diabetic complications have become life-threatening or severely burdensome despite best efforts in maintaining good diabetic control through lifestyle modifications and medications.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Kidney Transplantation; Pancreas Transplantation; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26744123
DOI: 10.12809/hkmj154613 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2014Pancreas or kidney-pancreas transplantation improves survival and quality of life for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and kidney failure. Immunosuppression after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreas or kidney-pancreas transplantation improves survival and quality of life for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and kidney failure. Immunosuppression after transplantation is associated with complications. Steroids have adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, hyperglycaemia or hyperlipidaemia, increase risk of infection, obesity, cataracts, myopathy, bone metabolism alterations, dermatologic problems and cushingoid appearance. Whether avoiding steroids changes outcomes is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of steroid early withdrawal (treatment for less than 14 days after transplantation), late withdrawal (after 14 days after transplantation) or steroid avoidance in patients receiving a pancreas (including a vascularized organ) alone (PTA), simultaneous with a kidney (SPK) or after kidney transplantation (PAK).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register (to 18 June 2014) through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator. We handsearched: reference lists of nephrology textbooks, relevant studies, recent publications and clinical practice guidelines; abstracts from international transplantation society scientific meetings; and sent emails and letters seeking information about unpublished or incomplete studies to known investigators.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies of steroid avoidance (including early withdrawal) versus steroid maintenance or versus late withdrawal in pancreas or pancreas with kidney transplant recipients. We defined steroid avoidance as complete avoidance of steroid immunosuppression, early steroid withdrawal as steroid treatment for less than 14 days after transplantation and late withdrawal as steroid withdrawal after 14 days after transplantation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts, and where necessary the full text reports to determine which studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Authors of included studies were contacted to obtain missing information. Statistical analyses were performed using random effects models and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Cohort studies were not meta-analysed, but their findings summarised descriptively.
MAIN RESULTS
Three RCTs enrolling 144 participants met our inclusion criteria. Two compared steroid avoidance versus late steroid withdrawal and one compared late steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance. All studies included SPK and only one also included PTA. All studies had an overall moderate risk of bias and presented only short-term results (six to 12 months). Two studies (89 participants) compared steroid avoidance or early steroid withdrawal versus late steroid withdrawal. There was no clear evidence of an impact on mortality (2 studies, 89 participants: RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.21 to 12.75), risk of kidney loss censored for death (2 studies, 89 participants: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.09), risk of pancreas loss censored for death (2 studies, 89 participants: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.04), or acute kidney rejection (1 study, 49 participants: RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.20 to 21.50), however results were uncertain and consistent with no difference or important benefit or harm of steroid avoidance/early steroid withdrawal. The study that compared late steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance observed no deaths, no graft loss or acute kidney rejection at six months in either group and reported uncertain effects on acute pancreas rejection (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.35). Of the possible adverse effects only infection was reported by one study. There were significantly more UTIs reported in the late withdrawal group compared to the steroid avoidance group (1 study, 25 patients: RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.66).We also identified 13 cohort studies and one RCT which randomised tacrolimus versus cyclosporin. These studies in general showed that steroid-sparing and withdrawal strategies had benefits in lowering HbAc1 and risk of infections (BK virus and CMV disease) and improved blood pressure control without increasing the risk of rejection. However, two studies found an increased incidence of acute pancreas rejection (HR 2.8, 95% CI 0.89 to 8.81, P = 0.066 in one study and 43.3% in the steroid withdrawal group versus 9.3% in the steroid maintenance, P < 0.05 at three years in the other) and one study found an increased incidence of acute kidney rejection (18.7% in the steroid withdrawal group versus 2.8% in the steroid maintenance, P < 0.05) at three years.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently insufficient evidence for the benefits and harms of steroid withdrawal in pancreas transplantation in the three RCTs (144 patients) identified. The results showed uncertain results for short-term risk of rejection, mortality, or graft survival in steroid-sparing strategies in a very small number of patients over a short period of follow-up. Overall the data was sparse, so no firm conclusions are possible. Moreover, the 13 observational studies findings generally concur with the evidence found in the RCTs.
Topics: Adult; Cohort Studies; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Graft Rejection; Humans; Immunosuppression Therapy; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Kidney Transplantation; Living Donors; Middle Aged; Pancreas Transplantation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Steroids; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 25220222
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007669.pub2 -
Cell Transplantation 2014Different factors have been reported to influence islet isolation outcome, but their importance varies between studies and are hampered by the small sample sizes in most... (Review)
Review
Different factors have been reported to influence islet isolation outcome, but their importance varies between studies and are hampered by the small sample sizes in most studies. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review to assess the impact of donor-, pancreas-, and isolation-related variables on successful human islet isolation outcome. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched electronically in April 2009. All studies reporting on donor-, pancreas-, and isolation-related factors relating to prepurification and postpurification islet isolation yield and proportion of successful islet isolations were selected. Seventy-four retrospective studies had sufficient data and were included in the analyses. Higher pre- and postpurification islet yields and a higher proportion of successful islet isolations were obtained when pancreata were preserved with the two-layer method rather than University of Wisconsin solution in donors with shorter cold ischemia times (CITs) [1 h longer CIT resulted in an average decline of prepurification and postpurification yields and proportion of successful isolations of 59 islet equivalents (IEQs)/g, 54 IEQs/g, and 21%, respectively]. Higher prepurification yields and higher percentage of successful islet isolations were found in younger donors with higher body mass index. Lower yields were found in donation after brain death donors compared to donation after cardiac death donors. Higher postpurification yields were found for isolation with Serva collagenase. This review identified donor-, pancreas-, and isolation-related factors that influence islet isolation yield. Standardized reports of these factors in all future studies may improve the power and identify additional factors and thereby contribute to improving islet isolation yield.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Islets of Langerhans; Islets of Langerhans Transplantation; Middle Aged; Pancreas; Tissue Donors
PubMed: 23635354
DOI: 10.3727/096368913X666412 -
American Journal of Transplantation :... Sep 2021Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for the practice of pancreas transplantation are yet to be established. The First World Consensus Conference on Pancreas...
Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for the practice of pancreas transplantation are yet to be established. The First World Consensus Conference on Pancreas Transplantation was convened for this purpose. A steering committee selected the participants and defined the questions to be addressed. A group of literature reviewers identified 597 studies to be included in summaries for guidelines production. Expert groups formulated the first draft of recommendations. Two rounds of discussion and voting occurred online, using the Delphi method (agreement rate ≥85%). After each round, critical responses of experts were reviewed, and recommendations were amended accordingly. Recommendations were finalized after live discussions. Each session was preceded by expert presentations and a summary of results of systematic literature review. Up to three voting rounds were allowed for each recommendation. To avoid potential conflicts of interest, deliberations on issues regarding the impact of pancreas transplantation on the management of diabetes were conducted by an independent jury. Recommendations on technical issues were determined by experts and validated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology. Each recommendation received a GRADE rating (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations).
Topics: Consensus; Humans; Pancreas Transplantation
PubMed: 34245116
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.16738 -
Transplant International : Official... Apr 2017Barriers to access and long-term complications remain a challenge in transplantation. Further advancements may be achieved through research priority setting with patient... (Review)
Review
Barriers to access and long-term complications remain a challenge in transplantation. Further advancements may be achieved through research priority setting with patient engagement to strengthen its relevance. We evaluated research priority setting in solid organ transplantation and described stakeholder priorities. Databases were searched to October 2016. We synthesized the findings descriptively. The 28 studies (n = 2071 participants) addressed kidney [9 (32%)], heart [7 (25%)], liver [3 (11%)], lung [1 (4%)], pancreas [1 (4%)], and nonspecified organ transplantation [7 (25%)] using consensus conferences, expert panel meetings, workshops, surveys, focus groups, interviews, and the Delphi technique. Nine (32%) reported patient involvement. The 336 research priorities addressed the following: organ donation [43 priorities (14 studies)]; waitlisting and allocation [43 (10 studies)]; histocompatibility and immunology [31 (8 studies)]; immunosuppression [21 (10 studies)]; graft-related complications [38 (13 studies)]; recipient (non-graft-related) complications [86 (14 studies)]; reproduction [14 (1 study)], psychosocial and lifestyle [49 (7 studies)]; and disparities in access and outcomes [10 (4 studies)]. The priorities identified were broad but only one-third of initiatives engaged patients/caregivers, and details of the process were lacking. Setting research priorities in an explicit manner with patient involvement can guide investment toward the shared priorities of patients and health professionals.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Caregivers; Delphi Technique; Focus Groups; Graft Rejection; Graft Survival; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Immunosuppression Therapy; Immunosuppressive Agents; Living Donors; Organ Transplantation
PubMed: 28120462
DOI: 10.1111/tri.12924 -
Global Surgical Education : Journal of... 2022Transplant surgery is a demanding field in which the technical skills of the surgeon correlates with patient outcomes. As such, there is potential for simulation-based... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Transplant surgery is a demanding field in which the technical skills of the surgeon correlates with patient outcomes. As such, there is potential for simulation-based training to play an important role in technical skill acquisition. This study provides a systematic assessment of the current literature regarding the use of simulation to improve surgeon technical skills in transplantation.
METHODS
Data were collected by performing an electronic search of the PubMed and Scopus database for articles describing simulation in transplant surgery. The abstracts were screened using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Three reviewers analyzed 172 abstracts and agreed upon articles that met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review.
RESULTS
Simulators can be categorized into virtual reality simulators, cadaveric models, animal models (animate or inanimate) and synthetic physical models. No virtual reality simulators in transplant surgery are described in the literature. Three cadaveric models, seven animal models and eight synthetic physical models specific to transplant surgery are described. A total of 18 publications focusing on technical skills simulation in kidney, liver, lung, pancreas, and cardiac transplantation were found with the majority focusing on kidney transplantation.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review identifies currently reported simulation models in transplant surgery. This will serve as a reference for general surgery and transplant surgery professionals interested in using simulation to enhance their technical skills.
PubMed: 38013707
DOI: 10.1007/s44186-022-00028-x -
Islets Jan 2018Pancreatic islet transplantation is being extensively researched as an alternative treatment for type 1 diabetic patients. This treatment is currently limited by...
Pancreatic islet transplantation is being extensively researched as an alternative treatment for type 1 diabetic patients. This treatment is currently limited by temporal mismatch, between the availability of pancreas and isolated islets from deceased organ donor, and the recipient's need for freshly isolated islets. To solve this issue, cryopreservation of islets may offer the potential to bank islets for transplant on demand. Cryopreservation, however, introduces an overwhelmingly harsh environment to the ever-so-fragile islets. After exposure to the freezing and thawing, islets are usually either apoptotic, non-functional, or non-viable. Several studies have proposed various techniques that could lead to increased cell survival and function following a deep freeze. The purpose of this article is to critically review the techniques of islet cryopreservation, with the goal of highlighting optimization parameters that can lead to the most viable and functional islet upon recovery and/or transplant.
Topics: Animals; Cryopreservation; History, 19th Century; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Islets of Langerhans; Islets of Langerhans Transplantation
PubMed: 29315020
DOI: 10.1080/19382014.2017.1405202 -
Surgery Nov 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy with a specific emphasis on the postoperative pancreatic fistula. For benign and low-grade malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and body, central pancreatectomy may be an alternative to distal pancreatectomy. Exocrine and endocrine insufficiency occur less often after central pancreatectomy, but the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula is higher.
METHODS
An electronic search was performed for studies on elective minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, which reported on major morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula in PubMed, Cochrane Register, Embase, and Google Scholar until June 1, 2021. A review protocol was developed a priori and registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021259738. A meta-regression was performed by using a random effects model.
RESULTS
Overall, 41 studies were included involving 1,004 patients, consisting of 158 laparoscopic minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, 80 robot-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, and 766 open central pancreatectomies. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was 14%, major morbidity 14%, and 30-day mortality 1%. The rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (17% vs 24%, P = .194), major morbidity (17% vs 14%, P = .672), and new-onset diabetes (3% vs 6%, P = .353) did not differ significantly between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, respectively. Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy was associated with significantly fewer blood transfusions, less exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and fewer readmissions compared with open central pancreatectomy. A meta-regression was performed with a random effects model between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy and showed no significant difference for postoperative pancreatic fistula (random effects model 0.16 [0.10; 0.24] with P = .789), major morbidity (random effects model 0.20 [0.15; 0.25] with P = .410), and new-onset diabetes mellitus (random effects model 0.04 [0.02; 0.07] with P = .651).
CONCLUSION
In selected patients and in experienced hands, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy is a safe alternative to open central pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant lesions of the neck and body. Ideally, further research should confirm this with the main focus on postoperative pancreatic fistula and endocrine and exocrine insufficiency.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35987787
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.06.024 -
Ontario Health Technology Assessment... 2015Type 1 diabetes mellitus is caused by the autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta (β) cells, resulting in severe insulin deficiency. Islet transplantation is a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Type 1 diabetes mellitus is caused by the autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta (β) cells, resulting in severe insulin deficiency. Islet transplantation is a β-cell replacement therapeutic option that aims to restore glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical effectiveness of islet transplantation in patients with type 1 diabetes, with or without kidney disease.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of the literature on islet transplantation for type 1 diabetes, including relevant health technology assessments, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and observational studies. We used a two-step process: first, we searched for systematic reviews and health technology assessments; second, we searched primary studies to update the chosen health technology assessment. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews measurement tool was used to examine the methodological quality of the systematic reviews and health technology assessments. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence and the risk of bias according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria.
RESULTS
Our searched yielded 1,354 citations. One health technology assessment, 11 additional observational studies to update the health technology assessment, one registry report, and four guidelines were included; the observational studies examined islet transplantation alone, islet-after-kidney transplantation, and simultaneous islet-kidney transplantation. In general, low to very low quality of evidence exists for islet transplantation in patients with type 1 diabetes with difficult-to-control blood glucose levels, with or without kidney disease, for these outcomes: health-related quality of life, secondary complications of diabetes, glycemic control, and adverse events. However, high quality of evidence exists for the specific glycemic control outcome of insulin independence compared with intensive insulin therapy. For patients without kidney disease, islet transplantation improves glycemic control and diabetic complications for patients with type 1 diabetes when compared with intensive insulin therapy. However, results for health-related quality of life outcomes were mixed, and adverse events were increased compared with intensive insulin therapy. For patients with type 1 diabetes with kidney disease, islet-after-kidney transplantation or simultaneous islet-kidney transplantation also improved glycemic control and secondary diabetic complications, although the evidence was more limited for this patient group. Compared with intensive insulin therapy, adverse events for islet-after-kidney transplantation or simultaneous islet-kidney transplantation were increased, but were in general less severe than with whole pancreas transplantation.
CONCLUSIONS
For patients with type 1 diabetes with difficult-to-control blood glucose levels, islet transplantation may be a beneficial β-cell replacement therapy to improve glycemic control and secondary complications of diabetes. However, there is uncertainty in the estimates of effectiveness because of the generally low to very low quality of evidence for all outcomes of interest.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetic Nephropathies; Humans; Insulin; Islets of Langerhans Transplantation; Quality of Life
PubMed: 26644812
DOI: No ID Found