-
Annals of Surgery Open : Perspectives... Mar 2022To depict and analyze learning curves for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To depict and analyze learning curves for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).
BACKGROUND
Formal training is recommended for safe introduction of pancreatic surgery but definitions of learning curves vary and have not been standardized.
METHODS
A systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in pancreatic surgery. Primary outcome was the number needed to reach the learning curve as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, methods of analysis (statistical/arbitrary), and classification of learning phases.
RESULTS
Out of 1115 articles, 66 studies with 14,206 patients were included. Thirty-five studies (53%) based the learning curve analysis on statistical calculations. Most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n = 51), blood loss (n = 17), and complications (n = 10). The number of procedures to surpass a first phase of learning curve was 30 (20-50) for open PD, 39 (11-60) for laparoscopic PD, 25 (8-100) for robotic PD ( = 0.521), 16 (3-17) for laparoscopic DP, and 15 (5-37) for robotic DP ( = 0.914). In a three-phase model, intraoperative parameters improved earlier (first to second phase: operating time -15%, blood loss -29%) whereas postoperative parameters improved later (second to third phase: complications -46%, postoperative pancreatic fistula -48%). Studies with higher sample sizes showed higher numbers of procedures needed to overcome the learning curve (rho = 0.64, < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
This study summarizes learning curves for open-, laparoscopic-, and robotic pancreatic surgery with different definitions, analysis methods, and confounding factors. A standardized reporting of learning curves and definition of phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is desirable and proposed.
PubMed: 37600094
DOI: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000111 -
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 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jul 2018Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare LPD with OPD for these malignancies regarding short-term surgical and long-term survival outcomes.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted before March 2018 to identify comparative studies in regard to outcomes of both LPD and OPD for the treatment of pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancies. Morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), mortality, operative time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization, retrieved lymph nodes, and survival outcomes were compared.
RESULTS
Among eleven identified studies, 1196 underwent LPD, and 8247 were operated through OPD. The pooled data showed that LPD was associated with less morbidity (OR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.41~ 0.78, P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD = - 372.96 ml, 95% CI, - 507.83~ - 238.09 ml, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stays (WMD = - 197.49 ml, 95% CI, - 304.62~ - 90.37 ml, P < 0.01), and comparable POPF (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.59~ 1.24, P = 0.40), and overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.93~ 1.14, P = 0.54) compared to OPD. Operative time was longer in LPD (WMD = 87.68 min; 95%CI: 27.05~ 148.32, P < 0.01), whereas R0 rate tended to be higher in LPD (OR = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.00~ 1.37, P = 0.05) and there tended to be more retrieved lymph nodes in LPD (WMD = 1.15, 95%CI: -0.16~ 2.47, P = 0.08), but these differences failed to reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS
LPD can be performed as safe and effective as OPD for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy with respect to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LPD is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity and may serve as a promising alternative to OPD in selected individuals in the future.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Lymphatic Metastasis; Operative Time; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 29969999
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-018-0830-y -
Medicine Aug 2020Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most common and intractable complication after partial pancreatectomy, with an incidence of 13% to 64%. Polyglycolic acid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most common and intractable complication after partial pancreatectomy, with an incidence of 13% to 64%. Polyglycolic acid (PGA) mesh is a new technique that is designed to prevent POPF, and its effect has been evaluated in several randomized controlled trials and some retrospective cohort studies. In this study, we systematically and comprehensively analyzed the efficacy of PGA mesh based on reported studies.We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in English between January 2010 and October 2019. Analysis was performed by using Review Manger 5.3 software.Three RCTs and 8 nonrandomized studies were eligible with a total of 1598 patients including 884 PGA group patients and 714 control group patients. For pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), distal pancreatectomy (DP), and the 2 partial pancreatectomy (PD or DP), we found significant statistical differences in overall POPF (relative risk [RR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.61-0.91, P = .004; RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.57-0.96, P = .02; RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.64-0.89, P = .0009, respectively) and clinical pancreatic fistula (PF) (RR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.37-0.68, P < .00001; RR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.21-0.46, P < .00001; RR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.32-0.52, P < .00001, respectively) in favor of PGA. For partial pancreatectomy, significant statistical differences were found in overall complications (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.67-0.88, P = .0002) and estimated blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -53.58; 95% CI: -101.20 to -5.97, P = .03) in favor of PGA. We did not find significant differences regarding operative time (WMD = -8.86; 95% CI: -27.59 to 9.87, P = .35) and hospital stay (WMD = -2.73; 95% CI: -7.53 to 2.06, P = .26).This meta-analysis shows the benefits of the PGA mesh technique regarding POPF, clinical PF, and postoperative complications. This still needs to be verified by more randomized control trials.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Polyglycolic Acid; Postoperative Complications; Surgical Mesh
PubMed: 32846759
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021456 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2020To define the effectiveness of different anastomosis on clinically relevant postoperative fistula in patients with soft pancreas using the newest version of the fistula...
Is Invagination Anastomosis More Effective in Reducing Clinically Relevant Pancreatic Fistula for Soft Pancreas After Pancreaticoduodenectomy Under Novel Fistula Criteria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
To define the effectiveness of different anastomosis on clinically relevant postoperative fistula in patients with soft pancreas using the newest version of the fistula definition and criteria. Different criteria of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) result in the optimal anastomosis technique remaining controversial. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched up to 20 April 2020, and were evaluated by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials comparing duct-to-mucosa anastomosis vs. invagination anastomosis in pancreatic surgery were included. Seven studies involving 1,110 participants were included. Using the postoperative pancreatic fistula definition provided by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery 2016, the incidence rate of grade B/C pancreatic fistula was significantly lower in patients experiencing invagination anastomosis than in those undergoing duct-to-mucosa anastomosis. Four of seven trials comparing invagination with duct-to-mucosa anastomosis in patients with a soft pancreas showed that invagination was significantly better than duct-to-mucosa anastomosis in controlling pancreatic fistula formation, but no significant difference was detected between the two anastomosis techniques in patients with a hard pancreas. No significant difference in the length of hospital stay or postoperative mortality rate was found between the two methods. This study demonstrated superiority of invagination anastomosis over duct-to-mucosa anastomosis in reducing the risk of Grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula using the ISGPS 2016 definition, but it does not significantly reduce the mortality rate or length of hospital stay. The effect of invagination in reducing pancreatic fistula formation is obvious in patients with a soft pancreas, but there is no significant difference between the two anastomosis techniques in patients with a hard pancreas. We found a lower rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula in the invagination group, in patients with a soft pancreas.
PubMed: 32974203
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01637 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Oct 2022The effect of early oral feeding (EOF) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) upon perioperative complications and outcomes is unknown, therefore the aim of this systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The effect of early oral feeding (EOF) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) upon perioperative complications and outcomes is unknown, therefore the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of EOF on clinical outcomes after PD, such as postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) and length of stay (LOS).
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance and assimilated evidence from studies reporting outcomes for patients who received EOF after PD compared to enteral tube feeding (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN).
RESULTS
Four studies reported outcomes after EOF compared to EN/PN after PD and included 553 patients. Meta-analyses showed no difference in rates of CR-POPF (OR 0.74; 95%CI 0.44-1.24; p = 0.25) or DGE (Grade B/C) (OR 0.83; 95%CI 0.31-2.21; p = 0.70). LOS was significantly shorter in the EOF group compared to the EN/PN group (Mean Difference -3.40 days; 95% -6.11-0.70 days; p = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
Current available evidence suggests that EOF after PD is not associated with increased risk of DGE, does not exacerbate POPF and appears to reduce length of stay.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Enteral Nutrition; Length of Stay; Parenteral Nutrition; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 35606323
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2022.04.005 -
Medicine Dec 2017Our objective is to assess the function of peritoneal drainage, which is placed after pancreatic surgery. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Our objective is to assess the function of peritoneal drainage, which is placed after pancreatic surgery.
BACKGROUND
With the medical advancement some study put forward that peritoneal drainage is not the necessary after pancreatic surgery; it cannot improve the complications of postoperation even leading to more infection and so on. However, there is no one study can clear and definite whether omitting the drainage after surgery or not.
METHOD
Searching databases consist of all kinds of searching tools, such as Medline, The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, etc. All the included studies should meet our demand of this meta-analysis. In the all interest outcomes blow we take the full advantage of RevMan5 to assess, the main measure is odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence, the publication bias are assessed by Egger test and Begg test.
RESULT
The rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) in no drainage group is much lower than that in routine drainage group (OR = 0.47, I = 43%, P < .00001). The result of the 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this pool are almost accord with the former (OR = 0.57, I = 0%, P = .05). In subgroup the result suggest that the peritoneal drainage can increase the morbidity (OR = 0.71, I = 15%, P = .0002) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), but reduce the mortality (OR = 1.92, I = 8%, P = .03) after PD. In distal pancreatectomy (DP) the rate of POPF and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-PF) is lower without drainage; there is no significant difference in the CR-PF, hospital stay, intra-abdominal abscess, radiologic invention, and the reoperation.
CONCLUSION
In the current meta-analysis, we cannot make a clear conclusion whether to abandon the routine drainage or not, but from the subgroup we can see something is safer than nothing to routine peritoneal drainage. And the patients who underwent DP can attempt to omit the drainage. But it still needs more RCTs to assess the necessity of drainage.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Drainage; Female; Humans; Male; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Risk Assessment; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29390482
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009245 -
Canadian Journal of Surgery. Journal... 2022Patients should be informed beforehand of the risk factors for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (ExoPI) after pancreatic surgery; however, there are no clear identified... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients should be informed beforehand of the risk factors for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (ExoPI) after pancreatic surgery; however, there are no clear identified risk factors for this condition. This study aimed to identify the preoperative, perioperative and postoperative risk factors for ExoPI after pancreatic surgery.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, SAGE, CINAHL Plus and Taylor & Francis from inception to Mar. 7, 2021, for full-text articles that included patients who had undergone pancreatic surgery. The primary outcome was the number of ExoPI events and any risk factors evaluated. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess study quality.
RESULTS
Twenty studies involving 4131 patients (2312 [52.3%] male, mean age 60.12 [standard deviation 14.07] yr) were included. Of the 4131 patients, 1651 (40.0%) had postoperative ExoPI. Among the 11 factors evaluated, the significant risk factors were preoperative main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter greater than 3 mm (odds ratio [OR] 4.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-19.05), pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) as the surgical treatment procedure (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.92-5.68), pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) as the anastomotic procedure (OR 3.13, 95% CI 1.83-5.35), hard pancreatic texture (OR 2.93, 95% CI 1.99-4.32) and adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.54-4.04). Gender, history of diabetes mellitus or endocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EndoPI), underlying diseases, de novo diabetes or EndoPI, pylorus-preserving PD and postoperative pancreatic fistula were not risk factors for ExoPI after pancreatic surgery.
CONCLUSION
Preoperative MPD diameter greater than 3 mm, PD, PG reconstruction, hard pancreatic texture and adjuvant chemotherapy were risk factors for the development of ExoPI after pancreatic surgery. The findings should provide useful information for patients to reduce postoperative dissatisfaction and improve quality of life.
Topics: Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Female; Quality of Life; Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatectomy; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Pancreatic Diseases
PubMed: 36384688
DOI: 10.1503/cjs.010621 -
Scandinavian Journal of Surgery : SJS :... Jun 2024Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) occurs in 20%-40% of patients and remains a leading cause of morbidity... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) occurs in 20%-40% of patients and remains a leading cause of morbidity and increased healthcare cost in this patient group. Recently, several studies suggested decreased risk of CR-POPF with the use of peri-firing compression (PFC) technique. The aim of this report was to conduct a systematic review to get an overview of the current knowledge on the use of PFC in DP. In addition, our experience with PFC was presented.
METHODS
The systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Also, 19 patients undergoing DP with the use of PFC at Oslo University Hospital were studied. The primary endpoint was incidence of CR-POPF.
RESULTS
Seven articles reporting a total of 771 patients were ultimately included in the systematic review. Only two of these were case-control studies examining outcomes in patients with and without PFC, while the rest were case series. These were heterogeneous in terms of staplers used, cartridge selection policy, and PFC technique. Both case-control studies reported significantly reduced CR- POPF incidence with PFC. Eight (21%) of our patients developed CR-POPF after DP with PFC. Only one patient developed CR-POPF among those with pancreatic transection site thickness ⩽1.5 cm.
CONCLUSION
Evidence on potential benefits of PFC in DP is limited in quantity and quality. Our findings suggest that the use of PFC does not lead to reduction in the incidence of CR-POPF. Yet, there might be a benefit from PFC when dealing with a thin pancreas.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Complications; Male; Female; Middle Aged; Surgical Stapling; Aged
PubMed: 37982224
DOI: 10.1177/14574969231211084 -
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