-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2013Pancreatic resections are associated with high morbidity (30% to 60%) and mortality (5%). Synthetic analogues of somatostatin are advocated by some surgeons to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic resections are associated with high morbidity (30% to 60%) and mortality (5%). Synthetic analogues of somatostatin are advocated by some surgeons to reduce complications following pancreatic surgery; however, their use is controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether prophylactic somatostatin analogues should be used routinely in pancreatic surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded to February 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic somatostatin or one of its analogues versus no drug or placebo during pancreatic surgery (irrespective of language or publication status).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We analysed data with both the fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager (RevMan). We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an intention-to-treat or available case analysis. When it was not possible to perform either of the above, we performed a per protocol analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 21 trials (19 trials of high risk of bias) involving 2348 people. There was no significant difference in the perioperative mortality (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.16; n = 2210) or the number of people with drug-related adverse effects between the two groups (RR 2.09; 95% CI 0.83 to 5.24; n = 1199). Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. The overall number of participants with postoperative complications was significantly lower in the somatostatin analogue group (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; n = 1903) but there was no significant difference in the re-operation rate (RR 1.26; 95% CI 0.58 to 2.70; n = 687) or hospital stay (MD -1.29 days; 95% CI -2.60 to 0.03; n = 1314) between the groups. The incidence of pancreatic fistula was lower in the somatostatin analogue group (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.79; n = 2206). The proportion of these fistulas that were clinically significant was not mentioned in most trials. On inclusion of trials that clearly distinguished clinically significant fistulas, there was no significant difference between the two groups (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.28; n = 292).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Somatostatin analogues may reduce perioperative complications but do not reduce perioperative mortality. Further adequately powered trials with low risk of bias are necessary. Based on the current available evidence, somatostatin and its analogues are recommended for routine use in people undergoing pancreatic resection.
Topics: Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Length of Stay; Octreotide; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Sepsis; Somatostatin
PubMed: 23633353
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008370.pub3 -
Medicine Jul 2022Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is a common and troublesome complication after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). We conducted a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is a common and troublesome complication after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the risk factors of CR-POPF after PD.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for studies related to risk factors of CR-POPF after PD. Odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted from the included studies, then a meta-analysis was conducted. If necessary, sensitivity analysis would be performed by changing the effect model or excluding 1 study at a time. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and Begg test and Egger test.
RESULTS
A total of 27 studies with 24,740 patients were included, and CR-POPF occurred in 3843 patients (incidence = 17%, 95% CI: 16%-19%). Male (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.42-1.70), body mass index >25 kg/m2 (OR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.23-3.18), pancreatic duct diameter <3 mm (OR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.66-2.12), soft pancreatic texture (OR = 3.49, 95% CI: 2.61-4.67), and blood transfusion (OR = 3.10, 95% CI: 2.01-4.77) can significantly increase the risk of CR-POPF. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.47-0.61), vascular resection (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.83), and preoperative chemoradiotherapy (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.57-0.81) can significantly decrease the factor of CR-POPF. Diabetes mellitus was not statistically associated with CR-POPF (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.40-1.08). However, the analysis of body mass index, pancreatic texture, and diabetes mellitus had a high heterogeneity, then sensitivity analysis was performed, and the result after sensitivity analysis showed diabetes mellitus can significantly decrease the risk of CR-POPF. There was no significant publication bias in this meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The current review assessed the effects of different factors on CR-POPF. This can provide a basis for the prevention and management of CR-POPF. Effective interventions targeting the above risk factors should be investigated in future studies for decreasing the occurrence of CR-POPF.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Humans; Male; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35776984
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029757 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Sep 2018Duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA) is a rare tumor for which survival data per treatment modality and disease stage are unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA) is a rare tumor for which survival data per treatment modality and disease stage are unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to summarize the current literature on patient outcome after surgical, (neo)adjuvant, and palliative treatment in patients with DA.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, to 25 April 2017. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), specified for treatment strategy or disease stage. Random-effects models were used for the calculation of pooled odds ratios per treatment modality. Included papers were also screened for prognostic factors.
RESULTS
A total of 26 observational studies, comprising 6438 patients with DA, were included. Of these, resection with curative intent was performed in 71% (range 53-100%) of patients, and 29% received palliative treatment (range 0-61%). The pooled 5-year OS rate was 46% after curative resection, compared with 1% in palliative-treated patients (OR 0.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.09, p < 0.0001). Both segmental resection and pancreaticoduodenectomy allowed adequate assessment of lymph node involvement and resulted in similar OS. Lymph node involvement correlated with worse OS (pooled 5-year survival rate 21% for nodal metastases vs. 65% for node-negative disease; OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11-0.27, p < 0.0001). In the current literature, no survival benefit for adjuvant therapy after curative resection was found.
CONCLUSION
Resection with curative intent, either pancreaticoduodenectomy or segmental resection, and lack of nodal metastases, favors survival for DA. Further studies exploring multimodality (neo)adjuvant therapy are warranted to investigate their benefit.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Duodenal Neoplasms; Humans; Lymphatic Metastasis; Metastasectomy; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Palliative Care; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29946997
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6567-6 -
BioMed Research International 2017The results of this meta-analysis show that DPPHR should be established as first-line treatment because of lower level of severe early postoperative complications,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Duodenum-Preserving Resection of the Pancreatic Head versus Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Treatment of Chronic Pancreatitis with Enlargement of the Pancreatic Head: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The results of this meta-analysis show that DPPHR should be established as first-line treatment because of lower level of severe early postoperative complications, maintenance of endocrine pancreatic functions, shortening of postoperative hospitalization time, and increase of quality of life compared to pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Topics: Duodenum; Humans; Pancreas; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Postoperative Period; Quality of Life
PubMed: 28904954
DOI: 10.1155/2017/3565438 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Nov 2023Pancreatic benign, cystic, and neuroendocrine neoplasms are increasingly detected and recommended for surgical treatment. In multiorgan resection pancreatoduodenectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic benign, cystic, and neuroendocrine neoplasms are increasingly detected and recommended for surgical treatment. In multiorgan resection pancreatoduodenectomy or parenchyma-sparing, local extirpation is a challenge for decision-making regarding surgery-related early and late postoperative morbidity.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Libraries were searched for studies reporting early surgery-related complications following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and duodenum-preserving total (DPPHRt) or partial (DPPHRp) pancreatic head resection for benign tumors. Thirty-four cohort studies comprising data from 1099 patients were analyzed. In total, 654 patients underwent DPPHR and 445 patients PD for benign tumors. This review and meta-analysis does not need ethical approval.
RESULTS
Comparing DPPHRt and PD, the need for blood transfusion (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10-0.41, p<0.01), re-intervention for serious surgery-related complications (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31-0.73, p<0.001), and re-operation for severe complications (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26-0.95, p=0.04) were significantly less frequent following DPPHRt. Pancreatic fistula B+C (19.0 to 15.3%, p=0.99) and biliary fistula (6.3 to 4.3%; p=0.33) were in the same range following PD and DPPHRt. In-hospital mortality after DPPHRt was one of 350 patients (0.28%) and after PD eight of 445 patients (1.79%) (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10-1.09, p=0.07). Following DPPHRp, there was no mortality among the 192 patients.
CONCLUSION
DPPHR for benign pancreatic tumors is associated with significantly fewer surgery-related, serious, and severe postoperative complications and lower in-hospital mortality compared to PD. Tailored use of DPPHRt or DPPHRp contributes to a reduction of surgery-related complications. DPPHR has the potential to replace PD for benign tumors and premalignant cystic and neuroendocrine neoplasms of the pancreatic head.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreas; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Duodenum; Neuroendocrine Tumors; Pancreatic Cyst
PubMed: 37670106
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-023-05789-4 -
BMC Cancer Aug 2019The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes and clinical efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD)... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparison of overall survival and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes and clinical efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register for studies published between May 1998 and May 2018. The included studies compared LPD and OPD for the treatment of PDAC. The oncological outcomes and perioperative data were analyzed.
RESULTS
Eight studies involving 15,278 patients were included in our meta-analysis. No significant difference was found in the 5-year overall survival (OS) between patients undergoing the two types of surgery (HR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.82-1.15, p = 0.76). LPD resulted in a higher rate of R0 resection than OPD (OR: 1.16, 95% CI 0.85-1.57, p > 0.05). This study showed that compared with OPD, LPD resulted in comparable rates of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.68-1.68, p = 0.77) and postoperative hemorrhage (OR: 1.74, 95% CI 0.96-3.71, p = 0.07), more harvested lymph nodes (WMD: 1.84, 95% CI: 0.95-2.72, p < 0.05), shorter hospital stays (WMD: -2.45, 95% CI: - 3.33- -1.56, p < 0.05), and less estimated blood loss (WMD: -374.30, 95% CI: - 513.06- -235.54, p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
LPD is equivalent to OPD with respect to 5-year OS and results in better perioperative clinical outcomes for patients with PDAC.
Topics: Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Neoplasm Grading; Neoplasm Staging; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31391085
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-6001-x -
World Journal of Gastroenterology May 2015To investigate whether prophylactic abdominal drainage is necessary after pancreatic resection. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To investigate whether prophylactic abdominal drainage is necessary after pancreatic resection.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to obtain relevant articles published before January 2014. Publications were retrieved if they met the selection criteria. The outcomes of interest included: mortality, morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-PF), abdominal abscess, reoperation rate, the rate of interventional radiology drainage, and the length of hospital stay. Subgroup analyses were also performed for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and for distal pancreatectomy. Begg's funnel plot and the Egger regression test were employed to assess potential publication bias.
RESULTS
Nine eligible studies involving a total of 2794 patients were identified and included in this meta-analysis. Of the included patients, 1373 received prophylactic abdominal drainage. A fixed-effects model meta-analysis showed that placement of prophylactic drainage did not have beneficial effects on clinical outcomes, including morbidity, POPF, CR-PF, reoperation, interventional radiology drainage, and length of hospital stay (Ps > 0.05). In addition, prophylactic drainage did not significantly increase the risk of abdominal abscess. Overall analysis showed that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage resulted in higher mortality after pancreatectomy (OR = 1.56; 95%CI: 0.93-2.92). Subgroup analysis of PD showed similar results to those in the overall analysis. Elimination of prophylactic abdominal drainage after PD led to a significant increase in mortality (OR = 2.39; 95%CI: 1.22-4.69; P = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection is still necessary, though more evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing prophylactic drainage after PD and distal pancreatectomy are needed.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Chi-Square Distribution; Drainage; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Reoperation; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 25987799
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i18.5719 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016Pancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialized nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialized nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant lesions, partial pancreaticoduodenectomy represents the standard treatment for resectable tumours. The gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy can be reestablished via either an antecolic or a retrocolic route. The debate about the more favourable technique for bowel reconstruction is ongoing.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of antecolic and retrocolic gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search on 29 September 2015 to identify all randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library 2015, issue 9, MEDLINE (1946 to September 2015), and EMBASE (1974 to September 2015). We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched reference lists of identified trials to identify further relevant trials, and searched the trial registry clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all randomised controlled trials that compared antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction of bowel continuity after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy for any given indication to be eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the identified references and extracted data from the included trials. The same two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials, according to standard Cochrane methodology. We used a random-effects model to pool the results of the individual trials in a meta-analysis. We used odds ratios to compare binary outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Of a total of 216 citations identified by the systematic literature search, we included six randomised controlled trials (reported in nine publications), with a total of 576 participants. We identified a moderate heterogeneity of methodological quality and risk of bias of the included trials. None of the pooled results for our main outcomes of interest showed significant differences: delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18; P = 0.14), mortality (RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; P = 0.72), postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.47; P = 0.92), postoperative haemorrhage (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.65; P = 0.53), intra-abdominal abscess (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.67; P = 0.82), bile leakage (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.15; P = 0.79), reoperation rate (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.31; P = 0.20), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.67; 95%CI -2.85 to 1.51; P = 0.55). Furthermore, the perioperative outcomes duration of operation, intraoperative blood loss and time to NGT removal showed no relevant differences. Only one trial reported quality of life, on a subgroup of participants, also without a significant difference between the two groups at any time point. The overall quality of the evidence was only low to moderate, due to heterogeneity, some inconsistency and risk of bias in the included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was low to moderate quality evidence suggesting no significant differences in morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, or quality of life between antecolic and retrocolic reconstruction routes for gastro- or duodenojejunostomy. Due to heterogeneity in definitions of the endpoints between trials, and differences in postoperative management, future research should be based on clearly defined endpoints and standardised perioperative management, to potentially elucidate differences between these two procedures. Novel strategies should be evaluated for prophylaxis and treatment of common complications, such as delayed gastric emptying.
PubMed: 27689801
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011862.pub2 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Nov 2015A post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). This systematic review aimed to identify all... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). This systematic review aimed to identify all scoring systems to predict POPF after a PD, consider their clinical applicability and assess the study quality.
METHOD
An electronic search was performed of Medline (1946-2014) and EMBASE (1996-2014) databases. Results were screened according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and quality assessed according to the QUIPS (quality in prognostic studies) tool.
RESULTS
Six eligible scoring systems were identified. Five studies used the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition. The proposed scores feature between two and five variables and of the 16 total variables, the majority (12) featured in only one score. Three scores could be fully completed pre-operatively whereas 1 score included intra-operative and two studies post-operative variables. Four scores were internally validated and of these, two scores have been subject to subsequent multicentre review. The median QUIPS score was 38 out of 50 (range 16-50).
CONCLUSION
These scores show potential in calculating the individualized patient risk of POPF. There is, however, much variation in current scoring systems and further validation in large multicentre cohorts is now needed.
Topics: Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 26456948
DOI: 10.1111/hpb.12503 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2023Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC).
METHODS
A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group.
CONCLUSIONS
This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Duodenal Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37581763
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03047-4