-
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jun 2023To evaluate the efficacy of non-surgical submarginal peri-implant instrumentation with mechanical/physical decontamination compared to non-surgical submarginal... (Review)
Review
AIM
To evaluate the efficacy of non-surgical submarginal peri-implant instrumentation with mechanical/physical decontamination compared to non-surgical submarginal instrumentation alone or with placebo decontamination in patients with peri-implantitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Three focused questions were addressed, and a systematic search for randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, and prospective cohort studies with definitions of peri-implantitis and a minimal follow-up of 6 months was conducted. The main outcome variables were reduction in pocket probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Suppuration on probing, marginal peri-implant bone level changes, patient-related outcomes and adverse events, implant survival, treatment success, and disease resolution were assessed as secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Out of 239 findings, full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 9 (n = 9 RCTs) were included in the present review. Five studies evaluated the effects of various laser types, and in four studies efficacy of air-abrasive mechanisms and of a novel ultrasonic device was determined. At 6 months, PD reductions were observed in nine studies but only Er, Cr:YSGG laser-treated group showed statistically significant higher reductions compared to the control group. BOP was statistically significantly reduced at 6 months in two studies following the application of Er:YAG laser compared to controls. One study reported statistically significant reduction in BOP following application of air-polishing device compared to control treatment. No statistically significant differences between treatment groups were reported for the secondary outcome variables. Owing to the large heterogeneity of study designs, no meta-analysis was performed.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence on the efficacy of non-surgical submarginal peri-implant instrumentation with mechanical/physical decontamination is limited by the small number of controlled studies and the high heterogeneity of study protocols. Clinical and patient-reported benefits remain to be demonstrated.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Peri-Implantitis; Treatment Outcome; Disinfection
PubMed: 36550060
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13762 -
Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) Apr 2022Bezold's abscess is a deep neck abscess related to otomastoiditis. Due to the insidious clinical presentation, diagnosis can be extremely challenging, leading to delays... (Review)
Review
Bezold's abscess is a deep neck abscess related to otomastoiditis. Due to the insidious clinical presentation, diagnosis can be extremely challenging, leading to delays in treatment and possible life-threatening complications. The literature currently provides a fragmented picture, presenting only single or small number of cases. The present study aims at examining our experience and the literature findings (based on PRISMA criteria) of 97 patients with Bezold's abscess, summarizing their epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical presentation, imaging findings, and treatments. Bezold's abscess is found at any age, with overt male prevalence among adults. The clinical presentation, as well as the causative pathogens, are strikingly heterogeneous. Otomastoiditis and cholesteatoma are major risk factors. A clinical history of otitis is commonly reported (43%). CT and MRI are the main diagnostic tools, proving the erosion of the mastoid tip in 53% of patients and the presence of a concomitant cholesteatoma in 40%. Intracranial vascular (24%) or infectious (9%) complications have also been reported. Diagnosis might be easily achieved when imaging (CT) is properly applied. MRI has a limited diagnostic role, but it might be crucial whenever intracranial complications or the coexistence of cholesteatoma are suspected, helping to develop proper treatment (prompt antibiotic therapy and surgery).
Topics: Abscess; Adult; Cholesteatoma; Humans; Male; Mastoid; Mastoiditis; Neck
PubMed: 35448708
DOI: 10.3390/tomography8020074 -
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Aug 2014To investigate the efficacy of continuous and pulsed ultrasound (US) in the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
To investigate the efficacy of continuous and pulsed ultrasound (US) in the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA).
DESIGN
This systematic review and network meta-analysis covered 12 trials in total. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched through to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the two modes of US with control interventions (sham or blank) or with each other. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to integrate both the direct and indirect evidences on treatment effectiveness.
RESULTS
Pulsed US (PUS) is more effective in both pain relief and function improvement when compared with the control group; but for continuous US (CUS), there is only a significant difference in pain relief in comparison with the control group. In addition, no matter in terms of pain intensity or function at the last follow-up time point, PUS always exhibited a greater probability of being the preferred mode. However, the evidence of heterogeneity and the limitation in sample size of some studies could be a potential threat to the validity of results.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings indicated that PUS, with a greater probability of being the preferred mode, is more effective in both pain relief and function improvement when compared with the control group. However, CUS could only be considered as a pain relief treatment in the management of knee OA. The findings also confirmed that none of these modes is dangerous.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level II, systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Topics: Humans; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Management; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 24999112
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2014.06.028 -
European Journal of Clinical... Feb 2016The nervous system is frequently involved in patients with infective endocarditis (IE). A systematic review of the literature was realized in accordance with the... (Review)
Review
The nervous system is frequently involved in patients with infective endocarditis (IE). A systematic review of the literature was realized in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). This study sought to systematically evaluate the published evidence of the contribution of brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in IE. The aim was to identify studies presenting the incidence and type of MRI brain lesions in IE. Fifteen relevant studies were isolated using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Most of them were observational studies with a small number of patients. MRI studies demonstrated a wide variety and high frequency of cerebral lesions, around 80 % of which were mostly clinically occult. This review shows MRI's superiority compared to brain computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of neurologic complications. Recent developments of sensitive MRI sequences can detect microinfarction and cerebral microhemorrhages. However, the clinical significance of these microhemorrhages, also called cerebral microbleeds (CMBs), remains uncertain. Because some MRI neurological lesions are a distinctive IE feature, they can have a broader involvement in diagnosis and therapeutic decisions. Even if cerebral MRI offers new perspectives for better IE management, there is not enough scientific proof to recommend it in current guidelines. The literature remains incomplete regarding the impact of MRI on concerted decision-making. The long-term prognosis of CMBs has not been evaluated to date and requires further studies. Today, brain MRI can be used on a case-by-case basis based on a clinician's appraisal.
Topics: Aneurysm, Infected; Brain; Brain Abscess; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Clinical Decision-Making; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Meningitis, Bacterial; Prognosis
PubMed: 26585337
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-015-2523-6 -
Danish Medical Journal Aug 2014The treatment strategy for appendiceal mass is controversial, ranging from operation or image-guided drainage to conservative treatment with or without antibiotics. The... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The treatment strategy for appendiceal mass is controversial, ranging from operation or image-guided drainage to conservative treatment with or without antibiotics. The aim of this study was to assess the various treatment modalities with respect to complications and treatment failure.
METHODS
The analysis was based on the principles of a qualitative systematic review. The literature was searched in PubMed for the period from 1966 to March 2014. The articles were reviewed with respect to complications, treatment failure and hospital stay. Papers on post-operative intra-abdominal abscesses and abscesses of any cause other than appendicitis were excluded as were also studies only describing recurrent appendicitis and/or interval appendectomy. Sub-analyses were performed in children, adults, and in mixed populations.
RESULTS
A total of 48 studies were found eligible; they included in total 3,772 patients. Operation for appendiceal mass was beset with a moderate to high risk of complications of up to 57% and a risk of intestinal resection of up to 25%. Major complications were observed in up to 18% of cases. Conservative treatment with or without antibiotics was associated with a treatment failure rate of 8-15%. Drainage was beset with a risk of complications of 2-15% and a risk of treatment failure of 2-13%.
CONCLUSION
Operation with appendectomy for appendiceal mass carries a high risk of complications compared with conservative treatment or drainage. Drainage may lower the risk of treatment failure but entails a risk of complications. Based on the best evidence, we propose a step-down treatment strategy.
FUNDING
Not relevant.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Not relevant.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Drainage; Humans; Treatment Failure; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 25162440
DOI: No ID Found -
Nursing Outlook 2024The high burden of pressure ulcers (PUs) in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), coupled with the limited resources, underscores the need for preventive and context-specific... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The high burden of pressure ulcers (PUs) in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), coupled with the limited resources, underscores the need for preventive and context-specific treatment strategies.
PURPOSE
Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to establish and elucidate PU prevention and treatment interventions tested in SSA.
METHODS
This systematic review of the literature used, PRISMA to guide the search.
FINDINGS
The review identified nine studies on PU prevention (three) and treatment (six). Low-cost interventions assembled from locally available materials and multifaceted policies significantly prevented and treated PUs. The interventions included wound dressing agents, simple negative pressure suction devices that significantly treated PUs, and water-based bed surfaces.
DISCUSSION
There were gaps in the interventions that have been proven successful in other global settings.
CONCLUSION
In SSA, there is a need for nurses to tailor, test, and disseminate findings from evidence-based projects for PU prevention that have been successful in similar settings.
Topics: Pressure Ulcer; Humans; Africa South of the Sahara; Female; Male; Adult; Middle Aged
PubMed: 38490058
DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2024.102151 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a chronic inflammation and infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a chronic inflammation and infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Systemic antibiotics are a commonly used treatment option for CSOM, which act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic antibiotics for people with CSOM.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 March 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing systemic antibiotics (oral, injection) against placebo/no treatment or other systemic antibiotics with at least a one-week follow-up period, involving patients with chronic (at least two weeks) ear discharge of unknown cause or due to CSOM. Other treatments were allowed if both treatment and control arms also received it.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not, measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks); health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 studies (2135 participants) with unclear or high risk of bias. 1. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo It is very uncertain if there is a difference between systemic (intravenous) antibiotics and placebo in the resolution of ear discharge at between one and two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 8.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88 to 38.21; 33 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report results for resolution of ear discharge after two weeks. Health-related quality of life was not reported. The evidence is very uncertain for hearing and serious (intracranial) complications. Ear pain and suspected ototoxicity were not reported. 2. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (both study arms received topical antibiotics) Six studies were included of which five presented useable data. There may be little or no difference in the resolution of ear discharge at between one to two weeks for oral ciprofloxacin compared to placebo or no treatment when ciprofloxacin ear drops were used in both intervention arms (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; 390 participants; low-certainty evidence). No results after two weeks were reported. Health-related quality of life was not reported. The evidence is very uncertain for ear pain, serious complications and suspected ototoxicity. 3. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (both study arms received other background treatments) Two studies used topical antibiotics plus steroids as background treatment in both arms. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge between metronidazole and placebo at four weeks (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.65; 40 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). This study did not report other outcomes. It is also very uncertain if resolution of ear discharge at six weeks was improved with co-trimoxazole compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.16; 98 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Resolution of ear discharge was not reported at other time points. From the narrative report there was no evidence of a difference between groups for health-related quality of life, hearing or serious complications (very low-certainty evidence). One study (136 participants) used topical antiseptics as background treatment in both arms and found similar resolution of ear discharge between the amoxicillin and no treatment groups at three to four months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.41; 136 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The narrative report indicated no evidence of differences in hearing or suspected ototoxicity (both very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were reported. 4. Different types of systemic antibiotics This is a summary of four comparisons, where different antibiotics were compared to each other. Eight studies compared different types of systemic antibiotics against each other: quinolones against beta-lactams (four studies), lincosamides against nitroimidazoles (one study) and comparisons of different types of beta-lactams (three studies). It was not possible to conclude if there was one class or type of systemic antibiotic that was better in terms of resolution of ear discharge. The studies did not report adverse events well.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was a limited amount of evidence available to examine whether systemic antibiotics are effective in achieving resolution of ear discharge for people with CSOM. When used alone (with or without aural toileting), we are very uncertain if systemic antibiotics are more effective than placebo or no treatment. When added to an effective intervention such as topical antibiotics, there seems to be little or no difference in resolution of ear discharge (low-certainty evidence). Data were only available for certain classes of antibiotics and it is very uncertain whether one class of systemic antibiotic may be more effective than another. Adverse effects of systemic antibiotics were poorly reported in the studies included. As we found very sparse evidence for their efficacy, the possibility of adverse events may detract from their use for CSOM.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ciprofloxacin; Humans; Otitis Media, Suppurative; Ototoxicity; Pain; Persistent Infection
PubMed: 35819801
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013052.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection (involving more... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection (involving more than one micro-organism) of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Antibiotics are the most common treatment for CSOM, which act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be administered both topically and systemically, and can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM such as ear cleaning (aural toileting).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical versus systemic antibiotics for people with CSOM.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 March 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving patients (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The studies compared topical antibiotics against systemic (oral, injection) antibiotics. We separated studies according to whether they compared the same type of antibiotic in both treatment groups, or different types of antibiotics. For each comparison we considered whether there was background treatment for both treatment groups, for example aural toileting (ear cleaning).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not, measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks up to four weeks, and after four weeks), health-related quality of life using a validated instrument, ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies (445 participants), all with high risk of bias, were included. All but two studies included patients with confirmed CSOM, where perforation of the ear drum was clearly documented. None of the studies reported results for resolution of ear discharge after four weeks or health-related quality of life. 1. Topical versus systemic administration of the same type of antibiotics (quinolones) Four studies (325 participants) compared topical versus systemic (oral) administration of ciprofloxacin. Three studies reported resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks and found that the topical administration may slightly increase resolution (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.76; 285 participants; 3 studies; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence). In these studies, aural toileting was either not mentioned, or limited to the first visit. Three studies (265 participants) reported that they did not suspect ototoxicity in any participants, but it is unclear how this was measured (very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the outcomes of ear pain or serious complications. No studies reported results for hearing, despite it being measured in three studies. 2. Topical versus systemic administration of different types of antibiotics (quinolones versus aminoglycosides) One study (60 participants) compared topical ciprofloxacin versus gentamicin injected intramuscularly. No aural toileting was reported. Resolution of ear discharge was not measured at one to two weeks. The study did not report any 'side effects' from which we assumed that no ear pain, suspected ototoxicity or serious complications occurred (very low-certainty evidence). The study stated that "no worsening of the audiometric function related to local or parenteral therapy was observed". 3. Topical versus systemic administration of different types of antibiotics (quinolones versus amoxicillin-clavulanic acid) One study compared topical ofloxacin with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid with all participants receiving suction ear cleaning at the first visit. It is uncertain if there is a difference between the two groups in resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks due to study limitations and the very small sample size (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.72; 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear if there is a difference between topical quinolone compared with oral amoxicillin-clavulanic acid with regards to ear pain, hearing or suspected ototoxicity (very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the outcome of serious complications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was a limited amount of low-quality evidence available, from studies completed over 15 years ago, to examine whether topical or systemic antibiotics are more effective in achieving resolution of ear discharge for people with CSOM. However, amongst this uncertainty there is some evidence to suggest that the topical administration of antibiotics may be more effective than systemic administration of antibiotics in achieving resolution of ear discharge (dry ear). There is limited evidence available regarding different types of antibiotics. It is not possible to determine with any certainty whether or not topical quinolones are better or worse than systemic aminoglycosides. These two groups of compounds have different adverse effect profiles, but there is insufficient evidence from the included studies to make any comment about these. In general, adverse effects were poorly reported.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adult; Aminoglycosides; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Child; Chronic Disease; Humans; Ofloxacin; Otitis Media, Suppurative; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 33561891
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013053.pub2 -
BJS Open Feb 2019The use of peritoneal lavage to prevent postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) after appendicectomy has been debated widely. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of peritoneal lavage to prevent postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) after appendicectomy has been debated widely.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of suction alone lavage for appendicitis was performed to determine the relative benefit of lavage. Primary outcomes were postoperative IAA and wound infection (WI). Inclusion criteria were human studies reporting a comparison of appendicectomy with or without peritoneal lavage.
RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were retrospective. Only three were RCTs. Four studies included analysis only of the paediatric population. The rate of IAA was 1·0-19·5 per cent in patients receiving suction alone and 1·5-18·6 per cent in those having lavage. WI rates were 1·0-29·2 per cent for suction alone and 0·8-20·5 per cent for lavage. The pooled risk difference for IAA was 0·01 (95 per cent c.i. -0·03 to 0·06; = 0·50) and that for WI was 0·00 (-0·05 to 0·05; = 0·98). Analyses of both outcomes indicated a medium degree of heterogeneity between effect estimates with values of 71 per cent ( = 0·001) and 70 per cent ( = 0·010) for IAA and WI respectively.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence of benefit of lavage over suction for postoperative infective complications, and no individual study demonstrated a significant benefit in patients receiving lavage.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Acute Disease; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Peritoneal Lavage; Postoperative Complications; Suction; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 30734012
DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.50118 -
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