-
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2017The purpose of this systematic review was to compare minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) by using meta-analytical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to compare minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) by using meta-analytical techniques.
METHODOLOGY
Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. Data from included studies were extracted for the following outcomes: operative time, overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, blood loss, postoperative hemorrhage, yield of harvested lymph nodes, R1 rate, length of hospital stay, and readmissions. Random and fix effect meta-analyses were undertaken.
RESULTS
Initial reference search yielded 747 articles. Thorough evaluation resulted in 12 papers, which were analyzed. The total number of patients was 2186 (705 in MIPD group and 1481 in OPD). Although there were no differences in overall morbidity between groups, we noticed reduced blood loss, delayed gastric emptying, and length of hospital stay in favor of MIPD. In contrary, meta-analysis of operative time revealed significant differences in favor of open procedures. Remaining parameters did not differ among groups.
CONCLUSION
Our review suggests that although MIPD takes longer, it may be associated with reduced blood loss, shortened LOS, and comparable rate of perioperative complications. Due to heterogeneity of included studies and differences in baseline characteristics between analyzed groups, the analysis of short-term oncological outcomes does not allow drawing unequivocal conclusions.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 28488004
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-017-1583-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is the third update of a previously published Cochrane Review to address the uncertain benifits of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.
SEARCH METHODS
In this updated review, we re-searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) on 08 February 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included RCTs that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for important outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified a total of nine RCTs with 1892 participants. Drain use versus no drain use We included four RCTs with 1110 participants, randomised to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. Low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may reduce 90-day mortality (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants). Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may result in little to no difference in 30-day mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants), wound infection rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants), length of hospital stay (MD -0.14 days, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.51; three studies, 876 participants), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants), and quality of life (105 points versus 104 points; measured with the pancreas-specific quality of life questionnaire (scale 0 to 144, higher values indicating a better quality of life); one study, 399 participants). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that drain use probably resulted in little to no difference in morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of drain use on intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; three studies, 660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Active versus passive drain We included two RCTs involving 383 participants, randomised to the active drain group (N = 194) and the passive drain group (N = 189) after pancreatic surgery. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on 30-day mortality (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.06; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.66; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.90; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.77; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.04; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.83; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no drain-related complication in either group. Early versus late drain removal We included three RCTs involving 399 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, randomised to the early drain removal group (N = 200) and the late drain removal group (N = 199) after pancreatic surgery. Compared to late drain removal, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of early drain removal on 30-day mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.45; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.85; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), hospital costs (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.14; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.10; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.79; one study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -2.20 days, 95% CI -3.52 to -0.87; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain. None of the studies reported on drain-related complications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with no drain use, it is unclear whether routine drain use has any effect on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that routine drain use may reduce mortality at 90 days. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications. Compared with late drain removal, early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate, morbidity, and length of hospital stay for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but the evidence is very uncertain.
Topics: Abdomen; Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula
PubMed: 34921395
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub5 -
Scientific Reports Oct 2020Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most serious complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Recently, Blumgart anastomosis (BA) has been found to have... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most serious complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Recently, Blumgart anastomosis (BA) has been found to have some advantages in terms of decreasing POPF compared with other pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) using either the duct-to-mucosa or invagination approach. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the safety and effectiveness of BA versus non-Blumgart anastomosis after PD. The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Library were systematically searched for studies published from January 2000 to March 2020. One RCT and ten retrospective comparative studies were included with 2412 patients, of whom 1155 (47.9%) underwent BA and 1257 (52.1%) underwent non-Blumgart anastomosis. BA was associated with significantly lower rates of grade B/C POPF (OR 0.38, 0.22 to 0.65; P = 0.004) than non-Blumgart anastomosis. Additionally, in the subgroup analysis, the grade B/C POPF was also reduced in BA group than the Kakita anastomosis group. There was no significant difference regarding grade B/C POPF in terms of soft pancreatic texture between the BA and non-Blumgart anastomosis groups. In conclusion, BA after PD was associated with a decreased risk of grade B/C POPF. Therefore, BA seems to be a valuable PJ to reduce POPF comparing with non-Blumgart anastomosis.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anastomosis, Surgical; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 33087777
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-74812-4 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2022Background and Aims: Recent single-center retrospective studies have focused on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients, and compared the outcomes... (Review)
Review
Background and Aims: Recent single-center retrospective studies have focused on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients, and compared the outcomes between the laparoscopic and open approaches. Our study aimed to determine the outcomes of LPD in the elderly patients, by performing a systematic review and a meta-analysis of relevant studies. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted utilizing the Embase, Medline, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases to identify all studies that compared laparoscopic vs. open approach for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Results: Five retrospective studies were included in the final analysis. Overall, 90-day mortality rates were significantly decreased after LPD in elderly patients compared with open approaches (RR = 0.56; 95%CI: 0.32−0.96; p = 0.037, I2 = 0%). The laparoscopic approach had similar mortality rate at 30-day, readmission rate in hospital, Clavien−Dindo complications, pancreatic fistula grade B/C, complete resection rate, reoperation for complications and blood loss as the open approach. Additionally, comparing with younger patients (<70 years old), no significant differences were seen in elderly cohort patients regarding mortality rate at 90 days, readmission rate to hospital, and complication rate. Conclusions: Based on our meta-analysis, we identify that LPD in elderly is a safe procedure, with significantly lower 90-day mortality rates when compared with the open approach. Our results should be considered with caution, considering the retrospective analyses of the included studies; larger prospective studies are required.
PubMed: 36362961
DOI: 10.3390/life12111810 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Sep 2022Pancreatoduodenectomy is burdened by elevated postoperative morbidity. Pancreatic duct ligation or occlusion have been experimented as an alternative to reduce the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Postoperative morbidity and mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatic duct occlusion compared to pancreatic anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Pancreatoduodenectomy is burdened by elevated postoperative morbidity. Pancreatic duct ligation or occlusion have been experimented as an alternative to reduce the insurgence of postoperative pancreatic fistula. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare postoperative mortality and morbidity (pancreatic fistula, postoperative hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic exocrine insufficiency and diabetes mellitus) between patients undergoing pancreatic anastomosis or pancreatic duct ligation/occlusion after pancreatoduodenectomy.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 studies was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane protocol (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021249232).
RESULTS
No difference in postoperative mortality was highlighted. Pancreatic anastomosis was found to be protective considering all-grades pancreatic fistula (RR: 2.38, p = 0.0005), but pancreatic duct occlusion presented a 3-folded reduced risk to develop "grade C" pancreatic fistula (RR: 0.36, p = 0.1186), although not significant. Diabetes mellitus was more often diagnosed after duct occlusion (RR: 1.61, p < 0.0001); no difference was found in terms of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (RR: 1.19, p = 0.151).
CONCLUSION
Postoperative mortality is not influenced by the pancreatic reconstruction technique. Pancreatic anastomosis is associated with a reduction in all-grades pancreatic fistula. More high-quality studies are needed to clarify if duct sealing could reduce the prevalence of "grade C" fistula.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency; Humans; Morbidity; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Ducts; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 35450800
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2022.03.015 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Nov 2018In 2016, the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPS) proposed an updated definition for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Pancreas texture (PT) is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative pancreatic fistula rates using the updated 2016 International Study Group Pancreatic Fistula definition in patients undergoing pancreatic resection with soft and hard pancreatic texture.
BACKGROUND
In 2016, the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPS) proposed an updated definition for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Pancreas texture (PT) is an established risk factor of POPF. The definition of soft vs. hard texture, however, remains elusive.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed to identify PT definitions and a meta-analysis linking POPF to PT using the updated ISGPS definition.
RESULTS
122 studies including 22 376 patients were identified. Definition criteria for PT varied among studies and most classified PT in hard and soft based on intraoperative subjective assessment. The total POPF rate (pooled grades B and C) after pancreatoduodenectomy was 14.5% (n = 10 395) and 15.5% (n = 3767) after distal pancreatectomy. In pancreatoduodenectomy, POPF rate was higher in soft compared to hard pancreas (RR, 4.4, 3.3 to 6.1; p < 0.001; n = 6393), where PT grouped as soft and hard. No data were available for intermediate PT.
CONCLUSION
The reported POPF rates may be used in planning future prospective studies. A widely accepted definition of PT is lacking and a correlation with the risk of POPF is based on subjective evaluation, which is still acceptable. Classification of PT into 2-groups is more reasonable than classification into 3-groups.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Prevalence; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29807807
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2018.04.003 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jan 2024Postoperative pancreatic fluid collections (POPFCs) are common adverse events (AEs) after pancreatic surgery and may need interventions. Endoscopic ultrasound... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pancreatic fluid collections (POPFCs) are common adverse events (AEs) after pancreatic surgery and may need interventions. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage for POPFCs is increasingly reported, but its appropriate timing has not been fully elucidated. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate treatment outcomes of POPFCs according to the timing of EUS-guided drainage.
METHODS
Using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database, we identified clinical studies published until December 2022 with data comparing outcomes of early and delayed EUS-guided drainage for POPFCs. We pooled data on AEs, mortality, and technical and clinical success rates, using the random-effects model.
RESULTS
From 1415 papers identified in the initial literature search, we identified 6 retrospective studies, including 128 and 107 patients undergoing early and delayed EUS-guided drainage for POPFCs. The threshold of early and delayed drainage ranged from 14 to 30 days. Distal pancreatectomy was the major cause of POPFCs, ranging from 44 to 100%. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for AEs was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-1.64, P = 0.55) comparing early to delayed drainage. There was no procedure-related mortality. Technical success was achieved in all cases and a pooled OR of clinical success was 0.60 (95% CI 0.20-1.83, P = 0.37).
CONCLUSION
POPFCs can be managed by early EUS-guided drainage without an increase in AEs.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Endosonography; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatectomy; Drainage; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38017158
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10568-y -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Nov 2012Currently, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is regarded as a safe and effective surgical approach for lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. This review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Currently, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is regarded as a safe and effective surgical approach for lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. This review compares outcomes of the laparoscopic technique with those of open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and assesses the efficacy, safety and feasibility of each type of procedure.
METHODS
Comparative studies published between January 1996 and April 2012 were included. Studies were selected based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Evaluated endpoints were operative outcomes, postoperative recovery and postoperative complications.
RESULTS
Fifteen non-randomized comparative studies that recruited a total of 1456 patients were analysed. Rates of conversion from LDP to open surgery ranged from 0% to 30%. Patients undergoing LDP had less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) -263.36.59 ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) -330.48 to -196.23 ml], fewer blood transfusions [odds ratio (OR) 0.28, 95% CI 0.11-0.76], shorter hospital stay (WMD -4.98 days, 95% CI -7.04 to -2.92 days), a higher rate of splenic preservation (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.18-3.91), earlier oral intake (WMD -2.63 days, 95% CI -4.23 to 1.03 days) and fewer surgical site infections (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18-0.75). However, there were no differences between the two approaches with regard to operation time, time to first flatus and the occurrence of pancreatic fistula and other postoperative complications.
CONCLUSIONS
Laparoscopic resection results in improved operative and postoperative outcomes compared with open surgery according to the results of the present meta-analyses. It may be a safe and feasible option for patients with lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. However, randomized controlled trials should be undertaken to confirm the relevance of these early findings.
Topics: Chi-Square Distribution; Humans; Laparoscopy; Odds Ratio; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Postoperative Complications; Recovery of Function; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23043660
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2012.00531.x -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Jan 2013To potentially improve outcomes in pancreatic resection, robot-assisted pancreatic surgery has been introduced. This technique has possible advantages over laparoscopic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To potentially improve outcomes in pancreatic resection, robot-assisted pancreatic surgery has been introduced. This technique has possible advantages over laparoscopic surgery, such as its affordance of three-dimensional vision and increased freedom of movement of instruments. A systematic review was performed to assess the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted pancreatic surgery.
METHODS
The literature published up to 30 September 2011 was systematically reviewed, with no restrictions on publication date. Studies reporting on over five patients were included. Animal studies, studies not reporting morbidity and mortality, review articles and conference abstracts were excluded. Data were extracted and weighted means were calculated.
RESULTS
A total of 499 studies were screened, after which eight cohort studies reporting on a total of 251 patients undergoing robot-assisted pancreatic surgery were retained for analysis. Weighted mean operation time was 404 ± 102 min (510 ± 107 min for pancreatoduodenectomy only). The rate of conversion was 11.0% (16.4% for pancreatoduodenectomy only). Overall morbidity was 30.7% (n = 77), most frequently involving pancreatic fistulae (n = 46). Mortality was 1.6%. Negative surgical margins were obtained in 92.9% of patients. The rate of spleen preservation in distal pancreatectomy was 87.1%.
CONCLUSIONS
Robot-assisted pancreatic surgery seems to be safe and feasible in selected patients and, in left-sided resections, may increase the rate of spleen preservation. Randomized studies should compare the respective outcomes of robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Risk Factors; Robotics; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23216773
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2012.00589.x -
BMC Gastroenterology Apr 2020Gastric decompression after pancreatic surgery has been a routine procedure for many years. However, this procedure has often been waived in non-pancreatic abdominal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Gastric decompression after pancreatic surgery has been a routine procedure for many years. However, this procedure has often been waived in non-pancreatic abdominal surgeries. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the necessity of routine gastric decompression (RGD) following pancreatic surgery.
METHODS
PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science were systematically searched to identify relevant studies comparing outcomes of RGD and no gastric decompression (NGD) after pancreatic surgery. The overall complications, major complications, mortality, delayed gastric emptying (DGE); clinically relevant DGE (CR-DGE), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF), secondary gastric decompression, and the length of hospital stay were evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of six comparative studies with a total of 940 patients were included. There were no differences between RGD and NGD groups in terms of the overall complications (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 0.60-5.00; p = 0.31), major complications (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.00-4.91; p = 0.05), incidence of secondary gastric decompression (OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.60-2.02; p = 0.61), incidence of overall DGE (OR = 2.74; 95% CI: 0.88-8.56; p = 0.08; I = 88%), incidence of CR-POPF (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.76-2.15; p = 0.36), and incidence of POPF (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.81-2.14; p = 0.27). However, RGD was associated with a higher incidence of CR-DGE (OR = 5.45; 95% CI: 2.68-11.09; p < 0.001, I = 35%), a higher rate of mortality (OR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.05-2.24; p = 0.03; I = 83%), and a longer length of hospital stay (WMD = 5.43, 95% CI: 0.30 to 10.56; p = 0.04; I = 93%).
CONCLUSIONS
Routine gastric decompression in patients after pancreatic surgery was not associated with a better recovery, and may be unnecessary after pancreatic surgery.
Topics: Decompression, Surgical; Gastrostomy; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Stomach
PubMed: 32334515
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-020-01265-4