-
BioMed Research International 2023Pancreatic trauma is an uncommon injury that occurs usually in a young population and is frequently overlooked and not readily appreciated on initial examination.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic trauma is an uncommon injury that occurs usually in a young population and is frequently overlooked and not readily appreciated on initial examination. Nowadays, the diagnosis and management of pancreatic trauma are still controversial, and there is no gold standard for the treatment. The aim of this study is to describe our experience in the management of blunt pancreatic trauma with a laparoscopic approach and review the literature on laparoscopic management of pancreatic trauma.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed, and 40 cases were reported and analysed; 10 cases were excluded because the complete data were not retrievable. We also reported our experience with the case of an 18-year-old male diagnosed with a deep laceration of the pancreas between body and tail, involving the main pancreatic duct, and with a concomitant hematoma. The patient underwent exploratory laparoscopy with abdominal toilet, necrosectomy, and suture of main pancreatic duct; the total blood loss was less than 200 ml, and the total operative time was 180 minutes. The patient recovered uneventfully and was discharged on the 6th postoperative day.
RESULTS
30 patients with pancreatic trauma, 10 adults and 20 pediatrics (mean age 28.2 years and 10.5 years), underwent a total laparoscopic approach: 2 distal pancreatic-splenectomy, 22 spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, and 6 laparoscopic drainage. The mean operative time for the adult and pediatric populations was 160.6 and 214.5 minutes, the mean estimated blood loss was 400 ml and 75 ml, and the mean hospital stay was 14.9 and 9 days, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic management for pancreatic trauma can be considered feasible and safe when performed by an experienced laparoscopic pancreatic team, and in such a setting, it can be considered a viable alternative to open surgery, offering the well-known benefits of minimally invasive surgery.
Topics: Male; Humans; Adult; Child; Adolescent; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Spleen; Laparoscopy; Abdominal Injuries; Wounds, Nonpenetrating; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37810623
DOI: 10.1155/2023/9296570 -
Fecal microbiota transplantation in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.United European Gastroenterology Journal Oct 2019Modulating gut microbiota is a potential treatment for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). This meta-analysis explored whether fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Modulating gut microbiota is a potential treatment for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). This meta-analysis explored whether fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is successful in treating IBS.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed to find trials on FMT in IBS. Ratios and relative ratios (RR) of improvement for single-arm trials (SATs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were calculated, respectively. Changes in IBS Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS) and IBS Quality of Life (IBS-QOL) instrument compared to baseline in FMT versus placebo groups were pooled.
RESULTS
In SATs, 59.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 49.1-69.3) of IBS patients showed significant improvement. In RCTs, there were no differences between FMT and control in improvement (RR=0.93 (95% CI 0.50-1.75)) or changes in the IBS-SSS and IBS-QOL.
CONCLUSIONS
FMT was not effective in IBS. Variations in FMT methods and patient factors may contribute to the heterogeneous results of the trials.
Topics: Adult; Colonoscopy; Duodenoscopy; Dysbiosis; Fecal Microbiota Transplantation; Female; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Gastroscopy; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Male; Middle Aged; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 31662860
DOI: 10.1177/2050640619866990 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2014Pancreatic trauma in children is a serious condition with high morbidity. Blunt traumatic pancreatic lesions in children can be treated non-operatively or operatively.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic trauma in children is a serious condition with high morbidity. Blunt traumatic pancreatic lesions in children can be treated non-operatively or operatively. For less severe, grade I and II, blunt pancreatic trauma a non-operative or conservative approach is usually employed. Currently, the optimal treatment, of whether to perform operative or non-operative treatment of severe, grade III to V, blunt pancreatic injury in children is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of operative versus non-operative treatment of blunt pancreatic trauma in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 5, 2013), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED and CPCI-S) and ZETOC. In addition, we searched bibliographies of relevant articles, conference proceeding abstracts and clinical trials registries. We conducted the search on the 21 June 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to select all randomised clinical trials investigating non-operative versus operative treatment of blunt pancreatic trauma in children, irrespective of blinding, publication status or language of publication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used relevant search strategies to obtain the titles and abstracts of studies that were relevant for the review. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility.
MAIN RESULTS
The search found 83 relevant references. We excluded all of the references and found no randomised clinical trials investigating treatment of blunt pancreatic trauma in children.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review shows that strategies regarding non-operative versus operative treatment of severe blunt pancreatic trauma in children are not based on randomised clinical trials. We recommend that multi-centre trials evaluating non-operative versus operative treatment of paediatric pancreatic trauma are conducted to establish firm evidence in this field of medicine.
Topics: Child; Humans; Pancreas; Wounds, Nonpenetrating
PubMed: 24523209
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009746.pub2 -
Pancreas Oct 2014Portal annular pancreas (PAP) is an asymptomatic congenital pancreas anomaly, in which portal and/or mesenteric veins are encased by pancreas tissue. The aim of the... (Review)
Review
Portal annular pancreas (PAP) is an asymptomatic congenital pancreas anomaly, in which portal and/or mesenteric veins are encased by pancreas tissue. The aim of the study was to determine the role of PAP in pancreatic surgery as well as its management and potential complication, specifically, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).On the basis of a case report, the MEDLINE and ISI Web of Science databases were systematically reviewed up to September 2012. All articles describing a case of PAP were considered.In summary, 21 studies with 59 cases were included. The overall prevalence of PAP was 2.4% and the patients' mean (SD) age was 55.9 (16.2) years. The POPF rate in patients with PAP (12 pancreaticoduodenectomies and 3 distal pancreatectomies) was 46.7% (in accordance with the definition of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery).Portal annular pancreas is a quite unattended pancreatic variant with high prevalence and therefore still remains a clinical challenge to avoid postoperative complications. To decrease the risk for POPF, attentive preoperative diagnostics should also focus on PAP. In pancreaticoduodenectomy, a shift of the resection plane to the pancreas tail should be considered; in extensive pancreatectomy, coverage of the pancreatic remnant by the falciform ligament could be a treatment option.
Topics: Adrenal Gland Neoplasms; Delayed Diagnosis; Disease Management; Female; Humans; Incidental Findings; Infant, Newborn; Male; Middle Aged; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Complications; Prevalence; Sex Distribution
PubMed: 25207658
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000186 -
International Journal of Surgery... Nov 2021Although minimally invasive technology has been widely used in hepatectomy, it remains controversial with regards to liver transplantation, especially in donors right... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although minimally invasive technology has been widely used in hepatectomy, it remains controversial with regards to liver transplantation, especially in donors right hepatectomy. Herein, we compared the short-term safety and efficacy of minimally invasive donors right hepatectomy (MIDRH) with open donors right hepatectomy (ODRH).
METHODS
A systematic literature search was carried out using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library database in order to identify comparison studies of MIDRH and ODRH. Next, we obtained the relevant data, and carried out the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 12 studies, which included 1755 cases that underwent donors right hepatectomy. Compared to ODRH, patients that underwent MIDRH had less bleeding (SWD = -0.52, p<0.001), shorter hospital stays (SWD = -0.58, p < 0.001) and lower overall postoperative complications of donors (RR = 0.74, p = 0.008). However, MIDRH was found to be associated with prolonged operative times (SWD = 0.74, p < 0.001), as well as a higher rate of biliary complications in donors (RR = 2.26, p = 0.007) and recipients (RR = 1.69, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between MIDRH and ODRH in postoperative liver function, rate of major complications and vascular complications of both donors and recipients and overall postoperative complications.
DISCUSSION
MIDRH is superior to ODRH with regards to intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay and overall donor complications. Although biliary-related complications are higher, it is feasible to develop MIDRH in experienced liver transplant centers. However, higher-quality research is still needed for corroboration.
Topics: Hepatectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Liver Transplantation; Living Donors; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Tissue and Organ Harvesting
PubMed: 34688930
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106152 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Graft thrombosis is a well-recognised complication of solid organ transplantation and is one of the leading causes of graft failure. Currently there are no standardised... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Graft thrombosis is a well-recognised complication of solid organ transplantation and is one of the leading causes of graft failure. Currently there are no standardised protocols for thromboprophylaxis. Many transplant units use unfractionated heparin (UFH) and fractionated heparins (low molecular weight heparin; LMWH) as prophylaxis for thrombosis. Antiplatelet agents such as aspirin are routinely used as prophylaxis of other thrombotic conditions and may have a role in preventing graft thrombosis. However, any pharmacological thromboprophylaxis comes with the theoretical risk of increasing the risk of major blood loss following transplant. This review looks at benefits and harms of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing solid organ transplantation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of instituting thromboprophylaxis to patients undergoing solid organ transplantation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 10 November 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs designed to examine interventions to prevent thrombosis in solid organ transplant recipients. All donor types were included (donor after circulatory (DCD) and brainstem death (DBD) and live transplantation). There was no upper age limit for recipients in our search.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The results of the literature search were screened and data collected by two independent authors. Dichotomous outcome results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Random effects models were used for data analysis. Risk of bias was independently assessed by two authors using the risk of bias assessment tool. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified nine studies (712 participants). Seven studies (544 participants) included kidney transplant recipients, and studies included liver transplant recipients. We did not identify any study enrolling heart, lung, pancreas, bowel, or any other solid organ transplant recipient. Selection bias was high or unclear in eight of the nine studies; five studies were at high risk of bias for performance and/or detection bias; while attrition and reporting biases were in general low or unclear. Three studies (180 participants) primarily investigated heparinisation in kidney transplantation. Only two studies reported on graft vessel thrombosis in kidney transplantation (144 participants). These small studies were at high risk of bias in several domains and reported only two graft thromboses between them; it therefore remains unclear whether heparin decreases the risk of early graft thrombosis or non-graft thrombosis (very low certainty). UFH may make little or no difference versus placebo to the rate of major bleeding events in kidney transplantation (3 studies, 155 participants: RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.89 to 9.56; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effect model suggested that UFH may increase the risk of haemorrhagic events compared to placebo (RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 10.67, P = 0.04). Compared to control, any heparin (including LMWH) may make little or no difference to the number of major bleeding events (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.89 to 8.19; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) and had an unclear effect on risk of readmission to intensive care (3 studies, 180 participants: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.90, I² = 45%; very low certainty evidence). The effect of heparin on our other outcomes (including death, patient and graft survival, transfusion requirements) remains unclear (very low certainty evidence). Three studies (144 participants) investigated antiplatelet interventions in kidney transplantation: aspirin versus dipyridamole (1), and Lipo-PGE plus low-dose heparin to "control" in patients who had a diagnosis of acute rejection (2). None of these reported on early graft thromboses. The effect of aspirin, dipyridamole and Lipo PGE plus low-dose heparin on any outcomes is unclear (very low certainty evidence). Two studies (168 participants) assessed interventions in liver transplants. One compared warfarin versus aspirin in patients with pre-existing portal vein thrombosis and the other investigated plasmapheresis plus anticoagulation. Both studies were abstract-only publications, had high risk of bias in several domains, and no outcomes could be meta-analysed. Overall, the effect of any of these interventions on any of our outcomes remains unclear with no evidence to guide anti-thrombotic therapy in standard liver transplant recipients (very low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there is a paucity of research in the field of graft thrombosis prevention. Due to a lack of high quality evidence, it remains unclear whether any therapy is able to reduce the rate of early graft thrombosis in any type of solid organ transplant. UFH may increase the risk of major bleeding in kidney transplant recipients, however this is based on low certainty evidence. There is no evidence from RCTs to guide anti-thrombotic strategies in liver, heart, lung, or other solid organ transplants. Further studies are required in comparing anticoagulants, antiplatelets to placebo in solid organ transplantation. These should focus on outcomes such as early graft thrombosis, major haemorrhagic complications, return to theatre, and patient/graft survival.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Bias; Dipyridamole; Hemorrhage; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Liver Transplantation; Placebos; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombosis; Transplant Recipients; Warfarin
PubMed: 33720396
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011557.pub2 -
International Journal of Surgery... Aug 2017Innovation in surgical devices and improvement in laparoscopic skills have gradually led to achieve more challenging surgical procedures. Among these demanding... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Innovation in surgical devices and improvement in laparoscopic skills have gradually led to achieve more challenging surgical procedures. Among these demanding interventions is the pancreatic surgery that is seen as intraoperatively risky and with high postoperative morbi-mortality rate. In order to understand the complexity of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery, we performed a systematic review of literature.
DATA SOURCE
A systematic review of literature was performed regarding laparoscopic pancreatic resection.
RESULTS
Laparoscopic approach in pancreas resections has been extensively reported as safe and feasible regarding pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy and pancreatic enucleation. Compared to open approach, no benefit in morbi-mortality has been demonstrated (except for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy) and no controlled randomized trials have been reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Laparoscopic approach is not workable in all patients and patient selection is not standardized. Additionally, most optimistic reports considering laparoscopic approach are produced by tertiary centres. Currently, two tasks should be accomplished 1°) standardization of the laparoscopic pancreatic procedures 2°) comparative trials to assess endpoint benefits of laparoscopic pancreatic resection compared with open procedures.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy
PubMed: 28689866
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.07.028 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Mar 2022Multiple risk scores claim to predict the probability of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy. It is unclear which scores have undergone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple risk scores claim to predict the probability of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy. It is unclear which scores have undergone external validation and are the most accurate. The aim of this study was to identify risk scores for POPF, and assess the clinical validity of these scores.
METHODS
Areas under receiving operator characteristic curve (AUROCs) were extracted from studies that performed external validation of POPF risk scores. These were pooled for each risk score, using intercept-only random-effects meta-regression models.
RESULTS
Systematic review identified 34 risk scores, of which six had been subjected to external validation, and so included in the meta-analysis, (Tokyo (N=2 validation studies), Birmingham (N=5), FRS (N=19), a-FRS (N=12), m-FRS (N=3) and ua-FRS (N=3) scores). Overall predictive accuracies were similar for all six scores, with pooled AUROCs of 0.61, 0.70, 0.71, 0.70, 0.70 and 0.72, respectively. Considerably heterogeneity was observed, with I2 statistics ranging from 52.1-88.6%.
CONCLUSION
Most risk scores lack external validation; where this was performed, risk scores were found to have limited predictive accuracy. . Consensus is needed for which score to use in clinical practice. Due to the limited predictive accuracy, future studies to derive a more accurate risk score are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34810093
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.10.006 -
BJS Open Mar 2022The prognostic impact of margin status is reported with conflicting results after pancreatic cancer resection. While some studies validated an uninvolved resection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The prognostic impact of margin status is reported with conflicting results after pancreatic cancer resection. While some studies validated an uninvolved resection margin (R0) 1 mm or more of tumour clearance, others have failed to show benefit. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of margin definitions on median overall survival (OS).
METHODS
MEDLINE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies reporting associations between resection margins and OS between 2010 and 2021. Data regarding margin status (R0 circumferential resection margin (CRM) negative (CRM-), R0 CRM positive (CRM+), R0 direct, and R1 and OS were extracted. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled with a random-effects model. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.
RESULTS
The full texts of 774 studies were screened. In total, 21 studies compromising 6056 patients were included in the final synthesis. In total, 188 (24 per cent) studies were excluded due to missing margin definitions. The R0 (CRM+) rate was 50 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.40 to 0.61) and the R0 (CRM-) rate was 38 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 0.29 to 0.47). R0 (CRM-) resection was independently associated with improved OS compared to combined R1 and R0 (CRM+; HR 1.36, 95 per cent c.i. 1.23 to 1.56).
CONCLUSION
The revised R status was confirmed as an independent prognosticator compared to combined R0 (CRM+) and R1. The limited number of studies, non-standardized pathology protocols, and the varying number of margins assessed hamper comparability.
Topics: Humans; Margins of Excision; Pancreas; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prognosis
PubMed: 35301513
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac010 -
Surgery Nov 2021Pancreatic surgery is associated with considerable morbidity and, consequently, offers a large and complex field for research. To prioritize relevant future scientific... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic surgery is associated with considerable morbidity and, consequently, offers a large and complex field for research. To prioritize relevant future scientific projects, it is of utmost importance to identify existing evidence and uncover research gaps. Thus, the aim of this project was to create a systematic and living Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery.
METHODS
PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were systematically searched for all randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on pancreatic surgery. Outcomes from every existing randomized controlled trial were extracted, and trial quality was assessed. Systematic reviews were used to identify an absence of randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on identical subjects were grouped according to research topics. A web-based evidence map modeled after a mind map was created to visualize existing evidence. Meta-analyses of specific outcomes of pancreatic surgery were performed for all research topics with more than 3 randomized controlled trials. For partial pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, pooled benchmarks for outcomes were calculated with a 99% confidence interval. The evidence map undergoes regular updates.
RESULTS
Out of 30,860 articles reviewed, 328 randomized controlled trials on 35,600 patients and 332 systematic reviews were included and grouped into 76 research topics. Most randomized controlled trials were from Europe (46%) and most systematic reviews were from Asia (51%). A living meta-analysis of 21 out of 76 research topics (28%) was performed and included in the web-based evidence map. Evidence gaps were identified in 11 out of 76 research topics (14%). The benchmark for mortality was 2% (99% confidence interval: 1%-2%) for partial pancreatoduodenectomy and <1% (99% confidence interval: 0%-1%) for distal pancreatectomy. The benchmark for overall complications was 53% (99%confidence interval: 46%-61%) for partial pancreatoduodenectomy and 59% (99% confidence interval: 44%-80%) for distal pancreatectomy.
CONCLUSION
The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery, which is freely accessible via www.evidencemap.surgery and as a mobile phone app, provides a regularly updated overview of the available literature displayed in an intuitive fashion. Clinical decision making and evidence-based patient information are supported by the primary data provided, as well as by living meta-analyses. Researchers can use the systematic literature search and processed data for their own projects, and funding bodies can base their research priorities on evidence gaps that the map uncovers.
Topics: Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Pancreas
PubMed: 34187695
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.04.023