-
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.
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
For the last version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 8), and MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) to 28 August 2016). For this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2016 to 15 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled studies that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We identified six studies (1384 participants). Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Drain use versus no drain useWe included four studies with 1110 participants, who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. There was little or no difference in mortality at 30 days between groups (1.5% with drains versus 2.3% with no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Drain use probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days (0.8% versus 4.2%; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We were uncertain whether drain use reduced intra-abdominal infection (7.9% versus 8.2%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-quality evidence), or additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (10.9% versus 12.1%; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; three studies, 660 participants; very low-quality evidence). Drain use may lead to similar amount of wound infection (9.8% versus 9.9%; RR 0.98 , 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence), and additional open procedures for postoperative complications (9.4% versus 7.1%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with no drain use. There was little or no difference in morbidity (61.7% versus 59.7%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies, 711 participants; moderate-quality evidence) between groups. There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Health-related quality of life was measured with the pancreas-specific quality-of-life questionnaire (FACT-PA; a scale of 0 to 144 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Drain use may lead to similar quality of life scores, measured at 30 days after pancreatic surgery, when compared with no drain use (105 points versus 104 points; one study, 399 participants; low-quality evidence). Hospital costs and pain were not reported in any of the studies.Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants, who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. An active drain may lead to similar mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain; low-quality evidence), and morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15; low-quality evidence) when compared with a passive drain. We were uncertain whether an active drain decreased intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05; very low-quality evidence), or the number of additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29; very low-quality evidence). Active drain may reduce length of hospital stay slightly (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; one study; low-quality evidence; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay). Additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no mortality in either group. Early drain removal may slightly reduce morbidity (38.6% with early drain removal versus 61.4% with late drain removal; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93; low-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; low-quality evidence; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (MD -EUR 2069.00, 95% CI -3872.26 to -265.74; low-quality evidence; 17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs). We were uncertain whether early drain removal reduced additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% versus 1.8%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01; one study; very low-quality evidence). Intra-abdominal infection, wound infection, additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It was unclear whether routine abdominal drainage had any effect on the reduction of mortality at 30 days, or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that routine abdominal drainage probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days. Low-quality evidence suggested that use of an active drain compared to the use of a passive drain may slightly reduce the length of hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.
Topics: Abdomen; Device Removal; Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 29928755
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub4 -
Medicine Jul 2017The use of octreotide prophylaxis in the prevention of complications after pancreatic resection remains controversial. The aim of this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy of the prophylactic use of octreotide for the prevention of complications after pancreatic resection: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
The use of octreotide prophylaxis in the prevention of complications after pancreatic resection remains controversial. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of octreotide prophylactic treatment to prevent complications after pancreatic resection.
METHODS
Five databases (PubMed, Medline, SinoMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched for eligible studies from 1980 to November 2016 with the limitation of human subjects and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were extracted independently and were analyzed using RevMan statistical software version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, http://tech.cochrane.org/revman/download). Weighted mean differences (WMDs), risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs comprising 1902 patients were identified as eligible. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from low to moderate. A pooled analysis of effectiveness based on the data from each study revealed that octreotide could significantly reduce the rate of pancreatic fistula (PF) after pancreatic resection (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.57-0.98, P = .04). The same findings were discovered in multicenter and European subgroups with a subgroup analysis; no obvious differences were noted in American, Asian, and single-center subgroup analyses. An equal effect was observed between the use or non-use of octreotide groups regarding mortality (RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.77-2.02, P = .38). Octreotide had no advantages in regards to mortality improvement. The total numbers of complications associated with the use or non-use of octreotide were similar (RR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.58-1.03, P = .08). Among the high-risk group, octreotide was more effective in reducing complications (RR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.46-0.82, P = .0009). Compared with the patients who did not receive prophylactic treatment, the patients who underwent pancreatic resection benefited from octreotide because it had better efficacy in preventing fluid collection and postoperative pancreatitis.
CONCLUSION
The prophylactic use of octreotide is suitable for preventing postoperative complications, especially PF and fluid collection as well as postoperative pancreatitis. However, no obvious differences were noted regarding mortality. In view of the clinical heterogeneity and varying definitions of PF, whether these conclusions are broadly applicable should be further determined in future studies.
Topics: Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Octreotide; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28723761
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007500 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2022Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (l-RAMPS) provides a new surgical approach for patients with pancreatic cancers of the body and tail.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (l-RAMPS) provides a new surgical approach for patients with pancreatic cancers of the body and tail. However, whether it can achieve comparable outcomes to the open RAMPS (o-RAMPS) remains an issue.
METHODS
To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of l-RAMPS, the studies in the databases of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library published before September 13, 2021 were searched and a meta-analysis was performed using the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were analyzed.
RESULTS
Five retrospective cohorts involving 189 patients were included for final pooled analysis. There were no significant differences in the patients' operation time, intra-abdominal bleeding rate, intra-abdominal infection rate, mild morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification = 1), moderate to severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥2), overall morbidity, wound infection rate, pancreatic fistula rate, delayed gastric emptying rate, reoperation rate, length of hospital stay, postoperative mortality, R0 resection rate, and 2-year overall survival between the 2 approaches. Besides, l-RAMPS was associated with less blood loss (mean difference (MD) = -232.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -316.93 to -148.46, P < 0.00001) and shorter days until oral feeding (MD = -0.79, 95% CI = -1.35 to -0.22, P = 0.006). However, the pooled analysis also indicated a significantly fewer lymph nodes dissected (MD = -3.01, 95% CI = -5.59 to -0.43, P = 0.02) in l-RAMPS approach.
CONCLUSIONS
Although l-RAMPS provides similar outcomes associated with benefits of minimal invasiveness compared to o-RAMPS, it harvested significantly fewer lymph nodes which might have potentially negative influence on the patients' long-term survival. L-RAMPS is still in the infancy stage and further investigation is needed to verify its feasibility.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Lymph Node Excision; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Splenectomy
PubMed: 35577311
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106676 -
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 -
Digestive Surgery 2013The method of pancreatic reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is closely associated with postoperative morbidity, mortality, and patient's quality of life.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The method of pancreatic reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is closely associated with postoperative morbidity, mortality, and patient's quality of life. The objective of this study is to evaluate which anastomosis approach - pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) or pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) is a better option of choice in terms of postoperative complications.
METHODS
Articles comparing PG and PJ that were published by July 2011 were retrieved and subjected to a systematic review and meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 22 observational clinical studies (OCSs) were included. RCTs showed that the PG group had significantly lower incidence rates of postoperative intra-abdominal fluid collection (p = 0.003, relative risk (RR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.79) and multiple intra-abdominal complications (p = 0.0007, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12-0.56) than the PJ group. OCSs demonstrated significant differences between PG and PJ in terms of frequencies of postoperative biliary fistula, intra-abdominal fluid collection, pancreatic fistula, morbidity, and mortality. The overall analysis revealed significant differences in frequencies of intra-luminal hemorrhage (p = 0.03, OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.08-7.33) and grade B/C pancreatic fistula (p = 0.002, OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24-0.73) between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Current literature has no adequate evidence to prove that PG is superior to PJ for patients undergoing PD in terms of postoperative complications. A standardized classification of pancreatic fistula and other intra-abdominal complications may enable an objective, valid comparison between PG and PJ.
Topics: Gastrostomy; Humans; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 23689124
DOI: 10.1159/000350901 -
Surgery May 2023The aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review was to evaluate the association between intraoperative bile cultures and postoperative complications of patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review was to evaluate the association between intraoperative bile cultures and postoperative complications of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.
METHODS
A detailed literature search was performed from January 2015 to July 2022 in PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and EMBASE for related research publications. The data were extracted, screened, and graded independently. An analysis of pooled data was performed, and a risk ratio with corresponding confidence intervals was calculated and summarized.
RESULTS
A total of 8 articles were included with 1,778 pancreaticoduodenectomy patients who had an intraoperative bile culture performed. A systematic review demonstrated that some of the most common organisms isolated in a positive intraoperative bile culture were Enterococcus species, Klebsiella species, and E. coli. Four studies also showed that specific microorganisms were associated with specific postoperative complications (surgical site infection and intra-abdominal abscess). The postoperative complications that were evaluated for an association with a positive intraoperative bile culture were surgical site infections (risk ratio = 2.33, 95% confidence interval [1.47-3.69], P < .01), delayed gastric emptying (risk ratio = 1.23, 95% confidence interval [0.63-2.38], P = n.s.), 90-day mortality (risk ratio = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [0.01-52.76], P = n.s.), postoperative pancreatic hemorrhage (risk ratio = 1.70, 95% confidence interval [0.33-8.74], P = n.s.), intra-abdominal abscess (risk ratio = 1.70, 95% confidence interval [0.38-7.56], P = n.s.), and postoperative pancreatic fistula (risk ratio = 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.72-1.32], P = n.s.).
CONCLUSION
The cumulative data suggest that a positive intraoperative bile culture has no association with predicting the postoperative complications of delayed gastric emptying, 90-day mortality, postoperative pancreatic hemorrhage, intra-abdominal abscess, or postoperative pancreatic fistula. However, the data also suggest that a positive intraoperative bile culture was associated with a patient developing a surgical site infection.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Surgical Wound Infection; Pancreatic Fistula; Bile; Gastroparesis; Escherichia coli; Pancreatic Diseases; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Abdominal Abscess; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36707272
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.12.012 -
Journal of Investigative Surgery : the... Dec 2023Our objective is to compare the early outcomes associated with passive (gravity) drainage (PG) and active drainage (AD) after surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Our objective is to compare the early outcomes associated with passive (gravity) drainage (PG) and active drainage (AD) after surgery.
METHODS
Studies published until April 28, 2022 were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Web of Science databases.
RESULTS
Nine studies with 14,169 patients were identified. Two groups had the same intra-abdominal infection rate (RR: 0.55; = 0.13); In subgroup analysis of pancreaticoduodenectomy, active drainage had no significant effect on postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate (RR: 1.21; = 0.26) and clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) (RR: 1.05; = 0.72); Active drainage was not associated with lower percutaneous drainage rate (RR: 1.00; = 0.96), incidence of sepsis (RR: 1.00; = 0.99) and overall morbidity (RR: 1.02; = 0.73). Both groups had the same POPF rate (RR: 1.20; = 0.18) and CR-POPF rate (RR: 1.20; = 0.18) after distal pancreatectomy. There was no difference between two groups on the day of drain removal after pancreaticoduodenectomy (Mean difference: -0.16; = 0.81) and liver surgery (Mean difference: 0.03; = 0.99).
CONCLUSIONS
Active drainage is not superior to passive drainage and both drainage methods can be considered.
Topics: Humans; Abdomen; Pancreas; Drainage; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Complications; Pancreaticoduodenectomy
PubMed: 37733388
DOI: 10.1080/08941939.2023.2180115 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.
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
For the initial version of this review, we searched the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 April 2015), Embase (1980 to 9 April 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 9 April 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 9 April 2015). For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2015 to 28 August 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled trials that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We identified five trials (of 985 participants) which met our inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we employed the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Drain use versus no drain useWe included three trials involving 711 participants who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 358) and the no drainage group (N = 353) after pancreatic surgery. There was inadequate evidence to establish the effect of drains on mortality at 30 days (2.2% with drains versus 3.4% no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; three studies; low-quality evidence), mortality at 90 days (2.9% versus 11.6%; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.10; one study; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal infection (7.3% versus 8.5%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.20; three studies; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (12.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; three studies; low-quality evidence), morbidity (64.8% versus 62.0%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.16; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (11.5% versus 9.1%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.52; three studies). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.6%). Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain), intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05), morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29). The active drain group was associated with shorter length of hospital stay (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay) than in the passive drain group. The quality of evidence was low, or very low. Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (0% for both groups) or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% with early drain removal versus 1.8% with late drain removal; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01). The early drain removal group was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications (38.5% versus 61.4%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs) than in the late drain removal group. The quality of evidence for each of the outcomes was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is unclear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the reduction of mortality and postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. In case of drain insertion, low-quality evidence suggests that active drainage may reduce hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.
Topics: Abdomen; Device Removal; Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27764898
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub3 -
Cancers Apr 2021Major vascular invasion represents one of the most frequent reasons to consider pancreatic adenocarcinomas unresectable, although in the last decades, demolitive... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Major vascular invasion represents one of the most frequent reasons to consider pancreatic adenocarcinomas unresectable, although in the last decades, demolitive surgeries such as distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR) have become a therapeutical option.
METHODS
A meta-analysis of studies comparing DP-CAR and standard DP in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma was conducted. Moreover, a systematic review of studies analyzing oncological, postoperative and survival outcomes of DP-CAR was conducted.
RESULTS
Twenty-four articles were selected for the systematic review, whereas eleven were selected for the meta-analysis, for a total of 1077 patients. Survival outcomes between the two groups were similar in terms of 1 year overall survival (OS) (odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.31, = 0.24). Patients who received DP-CAR were more likely to have T4 tumors (OR 28.45, 95% CI 10.46 to 77.37, < 0.00001) and positive margins (R+) (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.17, = 0.008). Overall complications (OR, 1.72, 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.58, = 0.008) were more frequent in the DP-CAR group, whereas rates of pancreatic fistula (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.65, = 0.41) were similar.
CONCLUSIONS
DP-CAR was not associated with higher mortality compared to standard DP; however, overall morbidity was higher. Celiac axis involvement should no longer be considered a strict contraindication to surgery in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Considering the different baseline tumor characteristics, DP-CAR may need to be compared with palliative therapies instead of standard DP.
PubMed: 33921838
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13081967