-
Asian Journal of Surgery Jan 2019Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) has been developed with the aim of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of laparoscopic distal... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) has been developed with the aim of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic resections. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China Biology Medicine databases up to December 2016 for studies that compared the surgical outcomes of RADP vs. LDP or ODP for pancreatic resections. The weighted mean differences, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and the data were combined using the random-effects model. The GRADE system was used to interpret the primary outcomes of this meta-analysis. A total of seventeen non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 2133 patients satisfied the eligibility criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with a longer operative time (P = 0.018), a shorter hospital length of stay (P = 0.030), and a higher rate of spleen preservation (P = 0.022). Moreover, RADP was associated with a shorter hospital LOS (P = 0.014) and a lower total complication rate (P = 0.034) than ODP. We found no statistically significant differences between the techniques in the mean estimated blood loss, severe complication rate, incidence of total pancreatic fistulas or incidence of severe pancreatic fistulas. The overall quality of evidence was poor for all outcomes. This meta-analysis indicates that RADP may be safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP and ODP. Further RCTs are needed to confirm the outcomes of this meta-analysis.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Confidence Intervals; Databases, Bibliographic; Humans; Incidence; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Odds Ratio; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Patient Safety; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Spleen; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30337121
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.08.011 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Dec 2014To study costs of laparoscopic and open liver and pancreatic resections, all the compiled data from available observational studies were systematically reviewed. (Review)
Review
AIM
To study costs of laparoscopic and open liver and pancreatic resections, all the compiled data from available observational studies were systematically reviewed.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases to identify all studies published up to 2013 that compared laparoscopic and open liver [laparoscopic hepatic resection (LLR) vs open liver resection (OLR)] and pancreatic [laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) vs open pancreatic resection] resection. The last search was conducted on October 30, 2013.
RESULTS
Four studies reported that LLR was associated with lower ward stay cost than OLR (2972 USD vs 5291 USD). The costs related to equipment (3345 USD vs 2207 USD) and theatre (14538 vs 11406) were reported higher for LLR. The total cost was lower in patients managed by LLR (19269 USD) compared to OLR (23419 USD). Four studies reported that LPR was associated with lower ward stay cost than OLR (6755 vs 9826 USD). The costs related to equipment (2496 USD vs 1630 USD) and theatre (5563 vs 4444) were reported higher for LPR. The total cost was lower in the LPR (8825 USD) compared to OLR (13380 USD).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review support the economic advantage of laparoscopic over open approach to liver and pancreatic resection.
Topics: Cost Savings; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Hepatectomy; Hospital Costs; Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreatectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25516675
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i46.17595 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Pancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialised nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialised nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant lesions, partial pancreaticoduodenectomy represents the standard treatment for resectable tumours. The gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy can be reestablished via either an antecolic or retrocolic route. The debate about the more favourable technique for bowel reconstruction is ongoing.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of antecolic and retrocolic gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.
SEARCH METHODS
In this updated version, we conducted a systematic literature search up to 6 July 2021 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 6, MEDLINE (1946 to 6 July 2021), and Embase (1974 to 6 July 2021). We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched reference lists of identified trials to identify further relevant trials, and searched the trial registries clinicaltrials.govand World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all RCTs comparing antecolic with retrocolic reconstruction of bowel continuity after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy for any given indication to be eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the identified references and extracted data from the included trials. The same two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials, according to standard Cochrane methodology. We used a random-effects model to pool the results of the individual trials in a meta-analysis. We used odds ratios (OR) to compare binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Of a total of 287 citations identified by the systematic literature search, we included eight randomised controlled trials (reported in 11 publications), with a total of 818 participants. There was high risk of bias in all of the trials in regard to blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors and unclear risk for selective reporting in six of the trials. There was little or no difference in the frequency of delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.09; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence) with relevant heterogeneity between trials (I=40%). There was little or no difference in postoperative mortality (risk difference (RD) -0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; eight trials, 818 participants, high-certainty evidence); postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.40; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence); postoperative haemorrhage (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.59; six trials, 742 participants, low-certainty evidence); intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.74; seven trials, 788 participants, low-certainty evidence); bile leakage (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.91; seven trials, 606 participants, low-certainty evidence); reoperation rate (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.36; five trials, 682 participants, low-certainty evidence); and length of hospital stay (MD -0.21; 95% CI -1.41 to 0.99; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence). Only one trial reported quality of life, on a subgroup of 73 participants, also without a relevant difference between the two groups at any time point. The overall certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, due to some degree of heterogeneity, inconsistency and risk of bias in the included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that antecolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy results in little to no difference in morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, or quality of life. Due to heterogeneity in definitions of the endpoints between trials, and differences in postoperative management, future research should be based on clearly defined endpoints and standardised perioperative management, to potentially elucidate differences between these two procedures. Novel strategies should be evaluated for prophylaxis and treatment of common complications, such as delayed gastric emptying.
Topics: Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 35014692
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011862.pub3 -
World Journal of Surgery Oct 2021This systematic review explored the efficacy of different pain relief modalities used in the management of postoperative pain following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review explored the efficacy of different pain relief modalities used in the management of postoperative pain following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP) and impact on perioperative outcomes.
METHODS
MEDLINE (OVID), Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science and CENTRAL databases were searched using PRISMA framework. Primary outcomes included pain on postoperative day 2 and 4 and respiratory morbidity. Secondary outcomes included operation time, bile leak, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatic fistula, length of stay, and opioid use.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials and seven retrospective cohort studies (1313 patients) were included in the systematic review. Studies compared epidural analgesia (EDA) (n = 845), patient controlled analgesia (PCA) (n = 425) and transabdominal wound catheters (TAWC) (n = 43). EDA versus PCA following PD was compared in eight studies (1004 patients) in the quantitative meta-analysis. Pain scores on day 2 (p = 0.19) and 4 (p = 0.18) and respiratory morbidity (p = 0.42) were comparable between EDA and PCA. Operative times, bile leak, delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic fistula, opioid use, and length of stay also were comparable between EDA and PCA. Pain scores and perioperative outcomes were comparable between EDA and PCA following DP and EDA and TAWC following PD.
CONCLUSIONS
EDA, PCA and TAWC are the most frequently used analgesic modalities in pancreatic surgery. Pain relief and other perioperative outcomes are comparable between them. Further larger randomized controlled trials are warranted to explore the relative merits of each analgesic modality on postoperative outcomes with emphasis on postoperative complications.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Pancreatectomy; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34185150
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-021-06217-x -
World Journal of Clinical Cases Dec 2022As operative techniques and mortality rates of pancreatectomy have improved, there has been a shift in focus to maintaining and improving the nutritional status of these...
BACKGROUND
As operative techniques and mortality rates of pancreatectomy have improved, there has been a shift in focus to maintaining and improving the nutritional status of these patients as we continue to learn more about post-operative complications. Although pancreatic endocrine and exocrine insufficiencies are known complications of pancreatectomy, increased longevity of these patients has also led to a higher incidence of fatty liver disease which differs from traditional fatty liver disease given the lack of metabolic syndrome.
AIM
To identify and summarize patterns and risk factors of post-pancreatectomy fatty liver disease to guide future management.
METHODS
We performed a database search on PubMed selecting papers published between 2001 and 2022 in the English language. PubMed was last accessed 1 June 2022.
RESULTS
Various factors influence the development of fatty liver including indication for surgery (benign malignant), type of pancreatectomy, amount of pancreas remnant, and peri-operative nutritional status. With an incidence rate up to 75%, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) can develop within 12 mo after pancreatectomy and various risk factors have been established including pancreatic resection line and remnant pancreas volume, peri-operative malnutrition and weight loss, pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (EPI), malignancy as the indication for surgery, and postmenopausal status.
CONCLUSION
Since majority of risk factors leads to EPI and malnutrition, peri-operative focus on nutrition and enzymes replacement is key in preventing and treating NAFLD after pancreatectomy.
PubMed: 36569000
DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i35.12946 -
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 Surgery Jan 2019This study evaluated the perioperative complications and the long-term pancreatic survival outcomes in patients treated with radical antegrade modular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Assessement of postoperative long-term survival quality and complications associated with radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
BACKGROUND
This study evaluated the perioperative complications and the long-term pancreatic survival outcomes in patients treated with radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).
METHOD
We performed a computer search on the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases to retrieve the RCT or clinical trials comparing RAMPS and DP published before July of 2018. The quality of the included trials was assessed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two researchers independently. The RevMan 5.3 software was used to extract and analyze the data.
RESULT
A total of 5 retroprospective clinical trial articles comprising 285 patients were included in the study. The number of patients who underwent RAMPS were 135 and 150 for DP. There were significant differences (P < 0.05) in the operation time [WMD = - 63.93, 95% CI (- 68.86 ~ - 58.99), P<0.00001], and bleeding volume [WMD = - 184.62, 95% CI (- 211.88 ~ - 157.37), P<0.00001] between the two groups. However, no significant differences were observed between RAMPS and DP in terms of pancreatic fistula, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, and mortality (P>0. 05). As for pathological examination, there were statistically significant differences between RAMPS and DP in the R0 resection rate [RR = 2.37, 95% CI (1.19 ~ 4.72), P = 0.01] and the number of lymph node excision [WMD = 7.08, 95% CI (4.59 ~ 9.58), P<0.000013]. The one-year overall survival rate was higher in RAMPS patients compared to DP patients [RR = 1.20, 95% CI (1.02 ~ 1.41), P = 0.02]. But there were no significant difference in postoperative recurrence [RR = 0.85, 95% CI (0.70 ~ 1.04), P = 0.13] between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
RAMPS is an effective procedure for clinical application. Nevertheless, large, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trias are required to validate these findings.
CONCLUSION
The RAMPS procedure was associated with good postoperative outcomes and overall survival, indicating that it is an effective procedure for clinical application. Large, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.
Topics: Humans; Length of Stay; Lymph Node Excision; Operative Time; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Period; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Splenectomy; Survival Rate
PubMed: 30691444
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-019-0476-x -
Journal of Hepato-biliary-pancreatic... Nov 2022Previous systematic reviews have shown that radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) had favorable outcomes including prognosis. However, recent large... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
Previous systematic reviews have shown that radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) had favorable outcomes including prognosis. However, recent large studies have shown opposite results, thus necessitating clarification of RAMPS efficacy. We aimed to update existing evidence on the clinical outcomes of RAMPS for left-sided pancreatic cancer by comparing them to those of the conventional approach.
METHODS
Electronic databases and registries were searched until August 2021 to perform random-effect meta-analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The protocol was registered at protocols.io (https://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bxhfpj3n).
RESULTS
Thirteen cohort studies (1641 patients) and four ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. RAMPS increased disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.42-0.91), but it had little effect on overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI = 0.79-1.09) and recurrence-free survival (HR 0.72, 95% CI = 0.37-1.38) with low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSION
The meta-analysis of recent studies suggests that RAMPS may have little effect on clinical outcomes. These findings highlight the necessity of further studies, including RCTs to determine the efficacy and subsequent indication of RAMPS in clinical cases.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Splenectomy; Lymph Node Excision; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prognosis
PubMed: 35092177
DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.1120 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jan 2023: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most challenging complications after pancreatic resections, associated with prolonged hospital stay and high... (Review)
Review
: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most challenging complications after pancreatic resections, associated with prolonged hospital stay and high mortality. Early identification of pancreatic fistula is necessary for the treatment to be effective. Several prognostic factors have been identified, although it is unclear which one is the most crucial. Some studies show that post-pancreatectomy hypophosphatemia may be associated with the development of POPF. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether postoperative hypophosphatemia can be used as a prognostic factor for postoperative pancreatic fistula. : The systematic literature review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations (PRISMA) and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to the 31st of January 2022 for studies analyzing postoperative hypophosphatemia as a prognostic factor for POPF. Data including study characteristics, patient characteristics, operation type, definitions of postoperative hypophosphatemia and postoperative pancreatic fistula were extracted. : Initially, 149 articles were retrieved. After screening and final assessment, 3 retrospective studies with 2893 patients were included in this review. An association between postoperative hypophosphatemia and POPF was found in all included studies. Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were more likely to develop severe hypophosphatemia compared to patients undergoing proximal pancreatectomy. Serum phosphate levels on postoperative day 4 (POD 4) and postoperative day 5 (POD 5) remained significantly lower in patients who developed leak-related complications showing a slower recovery of hypophosphatemia from postoperative day 3 (POD 3) through postoperative day 7 (POD 7). Moreover, body mass index (BMI) higher than 30 kg/m, soft pancreatic tissue, abnormal white blood cell count on postoperative day 3 (POD 3), and shorter surgery time were associated with leak-related complications (LRC) and lower phosphate levels. : Early postoperative hypophosphatemia might be used as a prognostic biomarker for early identification of postoperative pancreatic fistula. However, more studies are needed to better identify significant cut-off levels of postoperative hypophosphatemia and development of hypophosphatemia in the postoperative period.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Fistula; Prognosis; Retrospective Studies; Hypophosphatemia; Postoperative Complications; Phosphates; Postoperative Period; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36837475
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59020274 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... May 2022Major abdominal surgery and malignancy lead to a hypercoagulable state, with a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) of approximately 3% after pancreatic surgery. No... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Major abdominal surgery and malignancy lead to a hypercoagulable state, with a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) of approximately 3% after pancreatic surgery. No guidelines exist to assist surgeons in managing VTE prophylaxis or anticoagulation in patients undergoing elective pancreatic surgery for malignancy or premalignant lesions. A systematic review specific to VTE prophylaxis and anticoagulation after resectional pancreatic surgery is herein provided.
METHODS
Six topic areas are reviewed: pre- and perioperative VTE prophylaxis, early postoperative VTE prophylaxis, extended outpatient VTE prophylaxis, management of chronic anticoagulation, anti-coagulation after vascular reconstruction, and treatment of VTE. A Medline and PubMED search was completed with systematic medical literature review for each topic. Level of evidence was graded and strength of recommendation ranked according to the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system for practice guidelines.
RESULTS
Levels of evidence and strength of recommendations are presented.
DISCUSSION
While strong data exist to guide management of chronic anticoagulation and treatment of VTE, data for anticoagulation after reconstruction is inconclusive and support for perioperative chemoprophylaxis with pancreatic surgery is similarly limited. The risk of post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage often exceeds that of thrombosis. The role of universal chemoprophylaxis must therefore be examined critically, particularly in the preoperative setting.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Blood Coagulation; Hemorrhage; Humans; Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35063354
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.12.010