-
Frontiers in Oncology 2022The aim of this study was to compare the safety and overall effect of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) after the learning...
AIM
The aim of this study was to compare the safety and overall effect of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) after the learning curve, especially in perioperative outcome and short-term oncological outcome.
METHODS
A literature search was performed by two authors independently using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify any studies comparing the results of RDP versus LDP published until 5 January 2022. Only the studies where RDP was performed in more than 35 cases were included in this study. We performed a meta-analysis of operative time, blood loss, reoperation, readmission, hospital stay, overall complications, major complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, conversion to open surgery, spleen preservation, tumor size, R0 resection, and lymph node dissection.
RESULTS
Our search identified 15 eligible studies, totaling 4,062 patients (1,413 RDP). It seems that the RDP group had a higher rate of smaller tumor size than the LDP group (MD: -0.15; 95% CI: -0.20 to -0.09; < 0.00001). Furthermore, compared with LPD, RDP was associated with a higher spleen preservation rate (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.36-3.54; = 0.001) and lower rate of conversion to open surgery (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.33-0.55; < 0.00001). Our study revealed that there were no significant differences in operative time, overall complications, major complications, blood loss, blood transfusion, reoperation, readmission, POPF, and lymph node dissection between RDP and LDP.
CONCLUSIONS
RDP is safe and feasible for distal pancreatectomy compared with LDP, and it can reduce the rate of conversion to open surgery and increase the rate of spleen preservation, which needs to be further confirmed by quality comparative studies with large samples.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.
PubMed: 36106111
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.954227 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Oct 2023Postoperative complications following distal pancreatectomy (DP) are common, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). In order to design adequate prophylactic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative complications following distal pancreatectomy (DP) are common, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). In order to design adequate prophylactic strategies, it is of relevance to determine the costs of these complications. An overview of the literature on the costs of complications following DP is lacking.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (inception until 1 August 2022). The primary outcome was the costs (i.e. cost differential) of major morbidity, individual complications and prolonged hospital stay. Quality of non-RCTs were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Costs were compared with the use of Purchasing Power parity. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021223019).
RESULTS
Overall, seven studies were included with 854 patients after DP. The rate POPF grade B/C varied between 13% and 27% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 18,389 (based on two studies). The rate of severe morbidity varied between 13% and 38% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 19,281 (based on five studies).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review reported considerable costs for POPF grade B/C and severe morbidity after DP. Prospective databases and studies should report on all complications in a uniform matter to better display the economic burden of complications of DP.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula; Postoperative Complications; Morbidity; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37391314
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.03.007 -
The British Journal of Surgery Dec 2019Surgeons have traditionally been reluctant to perform total pancreatectomy because of concerns for brittle diabetes and poor quality of life (QoL). Several recent...
BACKGROUND
Surgeons have traditionally been reluctant to perform total pancreatectomy because of concerns for brittle diabetes and poor quality of life (QoL). Several recent studies have suggested that outcomes following total pancreatectomy have improved, but a systematic review is lacking.
METHODS
A systematic review was undertaken of studies reporting on outcomes after total pancreatectomy for all indications, except chronic pancreatitis. PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), and Cochrane Library were searched (2005-2018). Endpoints included functional outcome and QoL.
RESULTS
A total of 21 studies, including 1536 patients, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. During a median follow-up of 20·8 (range 1·5-96·0) months, 18·6 per cent (45 of 242 patients) were readmitted for endocrine-related morbidity, with associated mortality in 1·6 per cent (6 of 365 patients). No diabetes-related mortality was reported in studies including only patients treated after 2005. Symptoms related to exocrine insufficiency were reported by 43·5 per cent (143 of 329 patients) during a median follow-up of 15·9 (1·5-96·0) months. Overall QoL, reported by 102 patients with a median follow-up of 28·6 (6·0-66·0) months, using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, showed a moderately reduced summary score of 76 per cent, compared with a general population score of 86 per cent (P = 0·004).
CONCLUSION
Overall QoL after total pancreatectomy is affected adversely, in particular by the considerable impact of diarrhoea that requires better treatment. There is also room for improvement in the management of diabetes after total pancreatectomy, particularly with regards to prevention of diabetes-related morbidity.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Period; Quality of Life; Recovery of Function
PubMed: 31502658
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11296 -
Translational Gastroenterology and... 2019Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal malignancies with a dismal prognosis and survival. The curative effects of venous resection (VR) in pancreatic... (Review)
Review
Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal malignancies with a dismal prognosis and survival. The curative effects of venous resection (VR) in pancreatic cancer remain controversial. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The overall postoperative complications, perioperative mortality, histopathology, and long-term survival were compared between patients undergoing pancreatectomy combined with (VR+ group) or without (VR- group) VR. Forty-one studies were included in the systematic review. Pancreatectomy combined with VR required longer operation time and led to increased perioperative blood loss, whereas postoperative complications were similar. Patients in the VR+ group showed larger tumors and reduced R0 rates. Regarding long-term survival, patients with VR+ seemed to have impaired 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival. Based on our results, VR in pancreatic cancer is a safe and feasible procedure. Given the fact that patients have miserable outcomes and survival in the palliative setting alone, extended resection including VR is required for the purpose of achieving radical resection.
PubMed: 31304423
DOI: 10.21037/tgh.2019.06.01 -
Annals of Surgery Feb 2024To provide procedure-specific estimates of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding after abdominal surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of the Procedure-specific Risks of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General Abdominal, Colorectal, Upper Gastrointestinal, and Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery.
OBJECTIVE
To provide procedure-specific estimates of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding after abdominal surgery.
BACKGROUND
The use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis represents a trade-off that depends on VTE and bleeding risks that vary between procedures; their magnitude remains uncertain.
METHODS
We identified observational studies reporting procedure-specific risks of symptomatic VTE or major bleeding after abdominal surgery, adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up, and estimated cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery, stratified by VTE risk groups, and rated evidence certainty.
RESULTS
After eligibility screening, 285 studies (8,048,635 patients) reporting on 40 general abdominal, 36 colorectal, 15 upper gastrointestinal, and 24 hepatopancreatobiliary surgery procedures proved eligible. Evidence certainty proved generally moderate or low for VTE and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk of VTE varied substantially among procedures: in general abdominal surgery from a median of <0.1% in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to a median of 3.7% in open small bowel resection, in colorectal from 0.3% in minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy to 10.0% in emergency open total proctocolectomy, and in upper gastrointestinal/hepatopancreatobiliary from 0.2% in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to 6.8% in open distal pancreatectomy for cancer.
CONCLUSIONS
VTE thromboprophylaxis provides net benefit through VTE reduction with a small increase in bleeding in some procedures (eg, open colectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy), whereas the opposite is true in others (eg, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and elective groin hernia repairs). In many procedures, thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding VTE and bleeding.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Colorectal Neoplasms; Hemorrhage; Postoperative Complications; Thrombosis; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 37551583
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006059 -
Gland Surgery May 2021Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal tumours in Western society. Pancreatic surgery can be considered a challenge for open and laparoscopic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal tumours in Western society. Pancreatic surgery can be considered a challenge for open and laparoscopic surgeons, even if the accuracy of gland dissection, due to the close relationship between pancreas, the portal vein, and mesenteric vessels, besides the reconstructive phase (in pancreaticoduodenectomy), lead to significant difficulties for laparoscopic technique. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery changed utterly with the development of robotic surgery. However, this review aims to make more clarity on the influence of robotic surgery on long-term morbidity.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify and analyze studies published from November 2011 to September 2020 concerning robotic pancreatic surgery. The following terms were used to perform the search: "long term morbidity robotic pancreatic surgery".
RESULTS
Eighteen articles included in the study were published between November 2011 and September 2020. The review included 2041 patients who underwent robotic pancreatic surgery, mainly for a malignant tumour. The two most common robotic surgical procedures adopted were the robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). In two studies, patients were divided into groups; on the one hand, those who underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), on the other hand, those who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The remaining items included surgical approach such as robotic middle pancreatectomy (RMP), robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic dissection (RALPD), robotic enucleation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.
CONCLUSIONS
Comparison between robotic surgery and open surgery lead to evidence of different advantages of the robotic approach. A multidisciplinary team and a surgical centre at high volume are essential for better postoperative morbidity and mortality.
PubMed: 34164320
DOI: 10.21037/gs-21-64 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Aug 2021Risk factors for the development of clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) following distal pancreatectomy (DP) need clarification particularly following the 2016... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors of postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy in the era of 2016 International Study Group pancreatic fistula definition.
BACKGROUND
Risk factors for the development of clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) following distal pancreatectomy (DP) need clarification particularly following the 2016 International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition.
METHODS
A systemic search of MEDLINE, Pubmed, Scopus, and EMBASE were conducted using the PRISMA framework. Studies were evaluated for risk factors for the development CR-POPF after DP using the 2016 ISGPF definition. Further subgroup analysis was undertaken on studies ≥10 patients in exposed and non-exposed subgroups.
RESULTS
Forty-three studies with 8864 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The weighted rate of CR-POPF was 20.4% (95%-CI: 17.7-23.4%). Smoking (OR 1.29, 95%-CI: 1.08-1.53, p = 0.02) and open DP (OR 1.43, 95%-CI: 1.02-2.01, p = 0.04) were found to be significant risk factors of CR-POPF. Diabetes (OR 0.81, 95%-CI: 0.68-0.95, p = 0.02) was a significant protective factor against CR-POPF. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the comparisons of pancreatic texture and body mass index. Seventeen risk factors achieved significance in a univariate or multivariate comparison as reported by individual studies in the narrative synthesis, however, they remain difficult to interpret as statistically significant comparisons were not uniform.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis found smoking and open DP to be risk factors and diabetes to be protective factor of CR-POPF in the era of 2016 ISGPF definition.
Topics: Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33820687
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.02.015 -
World Journal of Transplantation Jan 2023Despite the increased use of total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT), systematic evidence of its outcomes remains limited.
BACKGROUND
Despite the increased use of total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT), systematic evidence of its outcomes remains limited.
AIM
To evaluate the outcomes of TPIAT.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception through March 2019 for studies on TPIAT outcomes. Data were extracted and analyzed using comprehensive meta-analysis software. The random-effects model was used for all variables. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I measure and Cochrane Q-statistic. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's test.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies published between 1980 and 2017 examining 1011 patients were included. Eighteen studies were of adults, while three studied pediatric populations. Narcotic independence was achieved in 53.5% [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 45-62, < 0.05, I = 81%] of adults compared to 51.9% (95%CI: 17-85, < 0.05, I = 84%) of children. Insulin-independence post-procedure was achieved in 31.8% (95%CI: 26-38, < 0.05, I = 64%) of adults with considerable heterogeneity compared to 47.7% (95%CI: 20-77, < 0.05, I = 82%) in children. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA) 12 mo post-surgery was reported in four studies with a pooled value of 6.76% ( = 0.27). Neither stratification by age of the studied population nor meta-regression analysis considering both the study publication date and the islet-cell-equivalent/kg weight explained the marked heterogeneity between studies.
CONCLUSION
These results indicate acceptable success for TPIAT. Future studies should evaluate the discussed measures before and after surgery for comparison.
PubMed: 36687559
DOI: 10.5500/wjt.v13.i1.10 -
Medicine Mar 2016Although distal pancreatectomy with en bloc celiac resection (DP-CAR) is used to treat locally advanced pancreatic cancer, the advantages and disadvantages of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Although distal pancreatectomy with en bloc celiac resection (DP-CAR) is used to treat locally advanced pancreatic cancer, the advantages and disadvantages of this surgical procedure remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate its clinical safety and efficacy.Studies regarding DP-CAR were retrieved from the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Chinese electronic databases. Articles were selected according to predesigned inclusion criteria, and data were extracted according to predesigned sheets. Clinical, oncologic, and survival outcomes of DP-CAR were systematically reviewed by hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratio (OR) using fixed- or random-effects models.Eighteen studies were included. DP-CAR had a longer operating time and greater intraoperative blood loss compared to distal pancreatectomy (DP). A high incidence of vascular reconstruction occurred in DP-CAR: 11.53% (95%CI: 6.88-18.68%) for artery and 33.28% (95%CI: 20.45-49.19%) for vein. The pooled R0 resection rate of DP-CAR was 72.79% (95% CI, 46.19-89.29%). Higher mortality and morbidity rates were seen in DP-CAR, but no significant differences were detected compared to DP; the pooled OR was 1.798 for mortality (95% CI, 0.360-8.989) and 2.106 for morbidity (95% CI, 0.828-5.353). The pooled incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was 31.31% (95%CI, 23.69-40.12%) in DP-CAR, similar to that of DP (OR = 1.07; 95%CI, 0.52-2.20). The pooled HR against DP-CAR was 5.67 (95%CI, 1.48-21.75) for delayed gastric emptying. The pooled rate of reoperation was 9.74% (95%CI, 4.56-19.59%) in DP-CAR. The combined 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates in DP-CAR were 65.22% (49.32-78.34%), 30.20% (21.50-40. 60%), and 18.70% (10.89-30.13%), respectively. The estimated means and medians for survival time in DP-CAR patients were 24.12 (95%CI, 18.26-29.98) months and 17.00 (95%CI, 13.52-20.48) months, respectively. There were no significant differences regarding postoperative 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates between DP-CAR and DP, whereas DP-CAR had a better 1-year survival rate compared to palliative treatments. The pooled HR for overall survival between DP-CAR and DP was 1.36 (95%CI: 0.997-1.850); the pooled HR favoring DP-CAR was 0.38 (95%CI: 0.25-0.58) for overall survival compared to palliative treatments. The rate of cancer-related pain relief from DP-CAR was 89.20% (95%CI, 77.85-95.10%). The pooled incidence of postoperative diarrhea was 37.10% (95%CI, 20.79-57.00%); however, most diarrhea was effectively controlled.DP-CAR is feasible and acceptable in terms of its survival benefits and improved quality of life. However, it should be performed with caution due to its high postoperative morbidity.
Topics: Celiac Artery; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26962836
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003061 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Sep 2023Prevention and management of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatic resections is still an unresolved issue. Continuous irrigation of the...
PURPOSE
Prevention and management of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatic resections is still an unresolved issue. Continuous irrigation of the peripancreatic area is frequently used to treat necrotizing pancreatitis, but its use after elective pancreatic surgery is not well-known. With this systematic review, we sought to evaluate the current knowledge and expertise regarding the use of continuous irrigation in the surgical area to prevent or treat POPF after elective pancreatic resections.
METHODS
A systematic search of the literature was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, screening the databases of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid MEDLINE. Because of the heterogeneity of the included articles, a statistical inference could not be performed and the literature was reviewed only descriptively. The study was pre-registered online (OSF Registry).
RESULTS
Nine studies were included. Three studies provided data regarding the prophylactic use of continuous irrigation after distal and limited pancreatectomies. Here, patients after irrigation showed a lower rate of clinically relevant POPF, related complications, lengths of stay, and mortality. Six other papers reported the use of local lavage to treat clinically relevant POPF and subsequent fluid collections, with successful outcomes.
CONCLUSION
In the current literature, only a few publications are focused on the use of continuous irrigation after pancreatic resection to prevent or manage POPF. The included studies showed promising results, and this technique may be useful in patients at high risk of POPF. Further investigations and randomized trials are needed.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Elective Surgical Procedures; Therapeutic Irrigation; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37659027
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03070-5