-
International Journal of Surgery... Sep 2022Validity of the laparoscopic approach in pancreatic head lesion remains debatable. This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Validity of the laparoscopic approach in pancreatic head lesion remains debatable. This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and investigate the source of heterogeneity from surgeons' and patients' perspectives.
METHOD
We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published before February 1, 2021. Of 6578 articles, 81 were full-text reviewed. The primary outcome was mortality. Three independent reviewers screened and extracted the data and resolved disagreements by consensus. Studies were evaluated for quality using ROB2.0 and ROBINS-I. According to different study designs, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the heterogeneity source. This meta-analyses was also conducted to explore the learning curve's heterogeneity. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021234579.
RESULTS
We analyzed 34 studies involving 46,729 patients (4705 LPD and 42,024 OPD). LPD was associated with lower (P = 0.025) in unmatched studies (P = 0.017). No differences in mortality existed in randomized controlled trials (P = 0.854) and matched studies (P = 0.726). Sensitivity analysis found no significant difference in mortality in elderly patients, patients with pancreatic cancer, and in high- and low-volume hospitals (all P > 0.05). In studies at the early period of LPD (<40 cases), higher mortality (P < 0.001) was found (all P < 0.05).LPD showed non-inferiority in length of stay, complications, and survival outcomes in all analyses.
CONCLUSION
In high-volume centers with adequate surgical experience, LPD in selected patients appears to be a valid alternative to LPD with comparable mortality, LOS, complications, and survival outcomes.
Topics: Aged; Hospitals, Low-Volume; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35988720
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106799 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2011Chronic pancreatitis affects 3-9 people in 100,000; 70% of cases are alcohol-induced. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Chronic pancreatitis affects 3-9 people in 100,000; 70% of cases are alcohol-induced.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of lifestyle interventions in people with chronic pancreatitis? What are the effects of dietary supplements in people with chronic pancreatitis? What are the effects of drug interventions in people with chronic pancreatitis? What are the effects of nerve blocks for pain relief in people with chronic pancreatitis? What are the effects of different invasive treatments for specific complications of chronic pancreatitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 27 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: avoiding alcohol consumption, biliary decompression, calcium supplements, ductal decompression (endoscopic or surgical), low-fat diet, nerve blocks, opioid analgesics, pancreatic enzyme supplements, pseudocyst decompression (endoscopic or surgical), resection using distal pancreatectomy, resection using pancreaticoduodenectomy (Kausch-Whipple or pylorus-preserving), and vitamin/antioxidant supplements.
Topics: Diet, Fat-Restricted; Endoscopy; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatitis, Chronic
PubMed: 22189345
DOI: No ID Found -
Cancer Management and Research 2019To assess whether total pancreatectomy (TP) is as feasible, safe, and efficacious as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Major databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Science... (Review)
Review
To assess whether total pancreatectomy (TP) is as feasible, safe, and efficacious as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Major databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, were searched for studies comparing TP and PD between January 1943 and June 2018. The meta-analysis only included studies that were conducted after 2000. The primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality. Pooled odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences (WMDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed effects or random effects models. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. In total, 45 studies were included in this systematic review, and 5 non-randomized comparative studies with 786 patients (TP: 270, PD: 516) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no differences in terms of mortality (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.66-3.16; =0.36), hospital stay (WMD: -0.60, 95% CI: -1.78-0.59; =0.32) and rates of reoperation (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.55-2.31; =0.75) between the two groups. In addition, morbidity was not significantly different between the two groups (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.01-1.97; =0.05); however, the results showed that the TP group tended to have more complications than the PD group. Furthermore, the operation time (WMD: 29.56, 95% CI: 8.23-50.89; =0.007) was longer in the TP group. Blood loss (WMD: 339.96, 95% CI: 117.74-562.18; =0.003) and blood transfusion (OR: 4.86, 95% CI: 1.93-12.29; =0.0008) were more common in the TP group than in the PD group. There were no differences in the long-term survival rates between the two groups. This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that TP may not be as feasible and safe as PD. However, TP and PD may have the same efficacy.
PubMed: 31123419
DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S195726 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2022The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients who often suffer from pre-existing conditions (e.g., cardiovascular diseases)...
BACKGROUND
The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients who often suffer from pre-existing conditions (e.g., cardiovascular diseases) and poor functional reserve remain unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LPD in elderly patients.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. All studies published from their inception to January 2022 reporting perioperative outcomes after LPD in elderly patients were included in the search (Group 1, comparing the perioperative outcomes of LPD and OPD in elderly patients; Group 2, comparing the perioperative outcomes after LPD between elderly and non-elderly patients). The evaluated outcomes included perioperative mortality, postoperative complications, conversion, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hospital stay (POHS), and readmission.
RESULTS
In total 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of Group 1 showed that EBL, 90-day mortality, major morbidity, bile leak, POH, abdominal infection, reoperation, POP, POCE, and readmission were not significantly different between the LPD and the OPD group. LPD was associated with longer operative time, lower POPF rate, lower DEG rate, and shorter POHS. Pooled analysis of Group 2 showed that mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DEG, bile leak, POH, abdominal infection, reoperation, conversion, operative time, EBL, and readmission were not significantly different between the elderly and the non-elderly group. The POHS of elderly group was significantly longer than non-elderly group.
CONCLUSION
LPD may be a safe and feasible procedure for elderly patients and is associated with short POHS.
PubMed: 35310445
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.807940 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Sep 2021: Anatomical post-surgical alterations of the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract have always been challenging for performing diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy,... (Review)
Review
: Anatomical post-surgical alterations of the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract have always been challenging for performing diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy, especially when biliopancreatic diseases are involved. Esophagectomy, gastrectomy with various reconstructions and pancreaticoduodenectomy are among the most common surgeries causing upper GI tract alterations. Technological improvements and new methods have increased the endoscopic success rate in these patients, and the literature has been rapidly increasing over the past few years. The aim of this systematic review is to identify evidence on the available biliopancreatic endoscopic techniques performed in the altered post-surgical anatomy of upper GI tract. : We performed a systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS databases. Study-level variables extracted were the last name of the first author, publication year, study design, number of patients, type of post-surgical anatomical alteration, endoscopic technique, success rate and endoscopic-related adverse events. : Our primary search identified 221 titles, which was expanded with studies after the citation search. The final full-text review process identified 52 articles (31 retrospective studies, 8 prospective studies and 13 case reports). We found several different techniques developed over the years for biliopancreatic diseases in altered anatomy, in order to perform both endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). They included enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (double and single balloon enteroscopy-ERCP, spiral enteroscopy-ERCP) laparoscopic assisted ERCP, EUS-Directed transgastric ERCP, EUS-directed transgastric intervention, gastric access temporary for endoscopy, and percutaneous assisted trans prosthetic endoscopic therapy. The success rate was high (most of the techniques showed a success rate over 90%) and a low rate of adverse events were reported. : We suggest the considerationof the novel techniques when approaching patients with altered anatomy who require biliopancreatic endoscopy, focusing on the surgery type, success rate and adverse events reported in the literature.
Topics: Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Endosonography; Gastrectomy; Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34684051
DOI: 10.3390/medicina57101014 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2010Pancreatic cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer death in higher-income countries, with 5-year survival only 10% even in people presenting with early-stage... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer death in higher-income countries, with 5-year survival only 10% even in people presenting with early-stage cancer. Risk factors include smoking, high alcohol intake, and dietary factors, while diabetes mellitus and previous pancreatitis may also increase the risk.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of surgical treatments in people with pancreatic cancer considered suitable for complete tumour resection? What are the effects of interventions to prevent pancreatic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy in people with pancreatic cancer considered suitable for complete tumour resection? What are the effects of adjuvant treatments in people with completely resected pancreatic cancer? What are the effects of interventions in people with non-resectable (locally advanced or advanced) pancreatic cancer? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 46 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: chemoradiotherapy; chemoradiotherapy for non-resectable pancreatic cancer; chemoradiotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer; fibrin glue; fluorouracil-based chemotherapy (adjuvant) for resected pancreatic cancer (with or without surgery); fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for non-resectable pancreatic cancer; fluorouracil-based chemotherapy (systemic); fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy; fluorouracil-based monotherapy for non-resectable pancreatic cancer; gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (adjuvant) for resected pancreatic cancer; gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (systemic); gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy; gemcitabine-based monotherapy for non-resectable pancreatic cancer; lymphadenectomy (extended [radical], or standard) in people having pancreaticoduodenectomy; pancreatic duct occlusion; pancreaticoduodenectomy (pylorus-preserving); pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple's procedure); pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction; pancreaticojejunostomy; and somatostatin and somatostatin analogues.
Topics: Fluorouracil; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pylorus
PubMed: 21729338
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2008Chronic pancreatitis affects 3-9 people in 100,000; 70% of cases are alcohol-induced. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Chronic pancreatitis affects 3-9 people in 100,000; 70% of cases are alcohol-induced.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of lifestyle interventions in people with chronic pancreatitis? What are the effects of dietary supplements in people with chronic pancreatitis? What are the effects of drug interventions in people with chronic pancreatitis? What are the effects of nerve blocks for pain relief in people with chronic pancreatitis? What are the effects of different invasive treatments for specific complications of chronic pancreatitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2008 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 23 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: avoiding alcohol consumption, biliary decompression, calcium supplements, ductal decompression (endoscopic or surgical), low-fat diet, nerve blocks, opioid analgesics, pancreatic enzyme supplements, pseudocyst decompression (endoscopic or surgical), resection using distal pancreatectomy, resection using pancreaticoduodenectomy (Kausch-Whipple or pylorus-preserving), and vitamin/antioxidant supplements.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Diet, Fat-Restricted; Humans; Pain Management; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatitis; Pancreatitis, Chronic
PubMed: 19445788
DOI: No ID Found -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Mar 2017Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. The aim was to conduct an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. The aim was to conduct an assessment of the best-evidence and expert opinion on the current status and future challenges of MIPD.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed and best-evidence presented at a State-of-the-Art conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection. Expert panel discussion and audience response activity was used to assess perceived value and future direction.
RESULTS
From 582 studies, 26 comparative trials of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were assessed for perioperative outcomes. There were no randomized controlled trials and all available comparative studies were determined of low quality. Several observational and case-matched studies demonstrate longer operative times, but less estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay for MIPD. Registry-based studies demonstrate increased mortality rates after MIPD in low-volume centers. Oncologic assessment demonstrates comparable outcomes of MIPD. Expert opinion supports ongoing evaluation of MIPD.
CONCLUSION
MIPD appears to provide similar perioperative and oncologic outcomes in selected patients, when performed at experienced, high-volume centers. Its overall role in pancreatoduodenectomy needs to be better defined. Improved training opportunities, registry participation and prospective evaluation are needed.
Topics: Benchmarking; Congresses as Topic; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Laparoscopy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28317658
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2017.01.023 -
Updates in Surgery Jun 2021The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has been a debate on its related outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated evidence comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes within Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy (OpenPD), Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LapPD), and Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RobPD). MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were referred for systematic search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was executed. Forty-one articles (56,440 patients) were included; 48,382 (85.7%) underwent OpenPD, 5570 (9.8%) LapPD, and 2488 (4.5%) RobPD. Compared to OpenPD, LapPD and RobPD had similar postoperative mortality [Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.26; 95%CrI 0.91-1.61 and RR = 0.78; 95%CrI 0.54-1.12)], clinically relevant (grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 1.12; 95%CrI 0.82-1.43 and RR = 0.87; 95%CrI 0.64-1.14, respectively), and severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) postoperative complications (RR = 1.03; 95%CrI 0.80-1.46 and RR = 0.93; 95%CrI 0.65-1.14, respectively). Compared to OpenPD, both LapPD and RobPD had significantly reduced hospital length-of-stay, estimated blood loss, infectious, pulmonary, overall complications, postoperative bleeding, and hospital readmission. No differences were found in the number of retrieved lymph nodes and R0. OpenPD, LapPD, and RobPD seem to be comparable across clinically relevant POPF, severe complications, postoperative mortality, retrieved lymphnodes, and R0. LapPD and RobPD appears to be safer in terms of infectious, pulmonary, and overall complications with reduced hospital readmission We advocate surgeons to choose their preferred surgical approach according to their expertise, however, the adoption of minimally invasive techniques may possibly improve patients' outcomes.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Humans; Laparoscopy; Network Meta-Analysis; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 33315230
DOI: 10.1007/s13304-020-00916-1 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2023The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.
METHOD
The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.
CONCLUSION
Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Retrospective Studies; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Pancreas; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 37572127
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03017-w