-
Medicine Nov 2016Preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) has been widely used to treat patients with malignant biliary obstruction. However, it is still unclear which method of PBD... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) has been widely used to treat patients with malignant biliary obstruction. However, it is still unclear which method of PBD (endoscopic nasobiliary drainage or endoscopic biliary stenting) is more effective. Thus, we carried out a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) and endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) in malignant biliary obstruction in terms of preoperative and postoperative complications.
METHODS
We conducted a literature search of EMBASE databases, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant available articles that were published in English, and we then compared ENBD and EBS in malignant biliary obstruction patients. The preoperative cholangitis rate, the preoperative pancreatitis rate, the incidence of stent dysfunction, the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate, and morbidity were analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to express the pooled effect on dichotomous variables, and the pooled analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3.
RESULTS
Seven published studies (n = 925 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. We determined that patients with malignant biliary obstruction who received ENBD had reductions in the preoperative cholangitis rate (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.25-0.51, P < 0.0001), the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.18-0.82, P = 0.01), the incidence of stent dysfunction (OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.28-0.56, P < 0.0001), and morbidity (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.27-0.82, P = 0.008) compared with patients who received EBS.
CONCLUSIONS
The current meta-analysis suggests that ENBD is better than EBS for malignant biliary obstruction in terms of the preoperative cholangitis rate, the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate, the incidence of stent dysfunction, and morbidity. However, a limitation is that there are no data from randomized controlled trials.
Topics: Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures; Cholestasis; Drainage; Humans; Nose; Stents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27861347
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005253 -
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 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022To evaluate the consistencies and inconsistencies between distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCCA) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDCA) regarding their biological...
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the consistencies and inconsistencies between distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCCA) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDCA) regarding their biological features and long-term prognosis.
METHODS
PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched to find comparative studies between DCCA and PDCA. RevMan5.3 and Stata 13.0 software were used for the statistical analyses.
RESULTS
Eleven studies with 4,698 patients with DCCA and 100,629 patients with PDCA were identified. Pooled results indicated that patients with DCCA had a significantly higher rate of preoperative jaundice (p = 0.0003). Lymphatic metastasis (p < 0.00001), vascular invasion (p < 0.0001), and peri-neural invasion (p = 0.005) were more frequently detected in patients with PDCA. After curative pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), a significantly higher R0 rate (p < 0.0001) and significantly smaller tumor size (p < 0.00001) were detected in patients with DCCA. Patients with DCCA had a more favorable overall survival (OS) (p < 0.00001) and disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.005) than patients with PDCA. However, postoperative morbidities (p = 0.02), especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (p < 0.00001), more frequently occurred in DCCA.
CONCLUSION
Patients with DCCA had more favorable tumor pathological features and long-term prognosis than patients with PDCA. An early diagnosis more frequently occurred in patients with DCCA. However, postoperative complications, especially POPF, were more frequently observed in patients with DCCA.
PubMed: 36578941
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1042493 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Jul 2020The number of pancreatic resections due to cancers is increasing. While concomitant venous resections are routinely performed in specialized centers, arterial resections... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The number of pancreatic resections due to cancers is increasing. While concomitant venous resections are routinely performed in specialized centers, arterial resections are still controversial. Nevertheless they are performed in patients presenting with locally advanced tumors. Our aim was to summarize currently available literature comparing peri-operative and long-term outcomes of arterial and non-arterial pancreatic resections.
METHODS
We included studies comparing pancreatic operations with and without concomitant arterial resection. Inclusion criteria were morbidity or mortality. Studies additionally reporting venous resections with no possibility of excluding this data during the extraction were discarded.
RESULTS
The initial search yielded 1651 records. Finally, 19 studies were included in the analysis involving 2710 patients. Arterial resection was associated with a greater risk of death(RR: 4.09; p < 0.001) and complications (RR: 1.4; p = 0.01). There were no differences in the rate of pancreatic fistula, biliary fistula rate, cardiopulmonary complications, length of hospital stay and non-R0 rate. Oncologically, patients after arterial resection were at higher risk of worse 3-year survival.
CONCLUSION
Arterial resection in pancreatic cancer is associated with an increased risk of mortality and complications in comparison to standard non-arterial resections. Nevertheless, arterial resection may become a viable treatment for selected patients in high volume centers.
Topics: Arteries; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Veins
PubMed: 32360186
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.04.005 -
The Indian Journal of Surgery Apr 2016Postoperative pancreatic fistula is still a major complication after pancreatic surgery, despite improvements of surgical technique and perioperative management. We... (Review)
Review
Postoperative pancreatic fistula is still a major complication after pancreatic surgery, despite improvements of surgical technique and perioperative management. We sought to systematically review and critically access the conduct and reporting of methods used to develop risk prediction models for predicting postoperative pancreatic fistula. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify articles published before January 1, 2015, which described the development of models to predict the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula. We extracted information of developing a prediction model including study design, sample size and number of events, definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula, risk predictor selection, missing data, model-building strategies, and model performance. Seven studies of developing seven risk prediction models were included. In three studies (42 %), the number of events per variable was less than 10. The number of candidate risk predictors ranged from 9 to 32. Five studies (71 %) reported using univariate screening, which was not recommended in building a multivariate model, to reduce the number of risk predictors. Six risk prediction models (86 %) were developed by categorizing all continuous risk predictors. The treatment and handling of missing data were not mentioned in all studies. We found use of inappropriate methods that could endanger the development of model, including univariate pre-screening of variables, categorization of continuous risk predictors, and model validation. The use of inappropriate methods affects the reliability and the accuracy of the probability estimates of predicting postoperative pancreatic fistula.
PubMed: 27303124
DOI: 10.1007/s12262-015-1439-9 -
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology Oct 2016Pancreas surgery has developed into a fairly safe procedure in terms of mortality, but is still hampered by considerable morbidity. Among the most frequent and dreaded... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreas surgery has developed into a fairly safe procedure in terms of mortality, but is still hampered by considerable morbidity. Among the most frequent and dreaded complications are the development of a post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The prediction and prevention of POPF remains an area of debate with several questions yet to be firmly addressed with solid answers.
METHODS
A systematic review of systematic reviews/meta-analyses and randomized trials in the English literature (PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane library, EMBASE) covering January 2005 to December 2015 on risk factors and preventive strategies for POPF.
RESULTS
A total of 49 systematic reviews and meta-analyses over the past decade discussed patient, surgeon, pancreatic disease and intraoperative related factors of POPF. Non-modifiable factors (age, BMI, comorbidity) and pathology (histotype, gland texture, duct size) that indicates surgery are associated with POPF risk. Consideration of anastomotic technique and use of somatostatin-analogs may slightly modify the risk of fistula. Sealant products appear to have no effect. Perioperative bleeding and transfusion enhance risk, but is modifiable by focus on technique and training. Drains may not prevent fistulae, but may help in early detection. Early drain-amylase may aid in detection. Predictive scores lack uniform validation, but may have a role in patient information if reliable pre-operative risk factors can be obtained.
CONCLUSIONS
Development of POPF occurs through several demonstrated risk factors. Anastomotic technique and use of somatostatin-analogs may slightly decrease risk. Drains may aid in early detection of leaks, but do not prevent POPF.
Topics: Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Drainage; Humans; Morbidity; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula; Postoperative Complications; Predictive Value of Tests; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27216233
DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2016.1169317 -
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 -
Wideochirurgia I Inne Techniki... Sep 2022There still exist controversies about the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic and traditional open surgery. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
There still exist controversies about the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic and traditional open surgery.
AIM
This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic versus traditional laparotomy in hepatic cystic hydatidosis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted for studies about liver hydatid surgery. After the quality assessment and relevant data extraction, the article was screened and included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies included 1211 cases, 362 in the laparoscopic group, and 849 in the open surgery group. According to meta-analysis, laparoscopic surgery is superior to traditional open surgery in terms of length of hospital stay, the recovery time of gastrointestinal function, total complications, and the risk of incision infection. There were no significant differences between laparoscopic surgery and traditional open surgery in operation time, postoperative time of abdominal drainage tube removal, recurrence rate, bile leakage rate, biliary fistula rate, and residual cavity infection rate.
CONCLUSIONS
Laparoscopy is superior to traditional open surgery in terms of length of hospital stay, the recovery time of gastrointestinal function, total complications, and the risk of incision infection. There was no significant difference in postoperative recurrence between laparoscopy and open surgery. In addition, we think laparoscopy can achieve the same clinical effect as laparotomy. However, the reliability and validity of our conclusion need to be verified by more randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
PubMed: 36187069
DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2022.115225 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Mar 2020Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is a demanding surgical procedure, thus explaining its slow expansion and limited popularity amongst... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is a demanding surgical procedure, thus explaining its slow expansion and limited popularity amongst Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary (HPB) surgeons. However, three main advantages of robotic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) including improved dexterity, 3D vision less surgical fatigue, may overcome some of the hurdles and ultimately lead to a wider adoption. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to evaluate the current literature on open and MIPD.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for PD. Network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss, transfusion rate), postoperative (overall and major complications, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, length of hospital stay) and oncological outcomes (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) were performed.
RESULTS
Sixty-one studies including 62,529 patients were included in the network meta-analysis, of which 3% (n = 2131) were totally robotic (TR) and 10% (n = 6514) were totally laparoscopic (TL). There were no significant differences between surgical techniques for major complications, overall and grade B/C fistula, biliary leak, mortality and R0 resections. Transfusion rates were significantly lower in TR compared to TL and open. Operative time for TR was longer compared with open and TL. Both TL and TR were associated with significantly lower rates of wound infections, pulmonary complications, shorter length of stay and higher lymph nodes examined when compared to open. TR was associated with significantly lower conversion rates than TL.
CONCLUSION
In summary, this network meta-analysis highlights the variability in techniques within MIPD and compares other variations to the conventional open PD. Current evidence appears to demonstrate MIPD, both laparoscopic and robotic techniques are associated with improved rates of surgical site infections, pulmonary complications, and a shorter hospital stay, with no compromise in oncological outcomes for cancer resections.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Network Meta-Analysis; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 31676255
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.09.016 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Sep 2011To outline the appropriate diagnostic methods and therapeutic options for acquired bronchobiliary fistula (BBF). (Review)
Review
AIM
To outline the appropriate diagnostic methods and therapeutic options for acquired bronchobiliary fistula (BBF).
METHODS
Literature searches were performed in Medline, EMBASE, PHMC and LWW (January 1980-August 2010) using the following keywords: biliobronchial fistula, bronchobiliary fistula, broncho-biliary fistula, biliary-bronchial fistula, tracheobiliary fistula, hepatobronchial fistula, bronchopleural fistula, and biliptysis. Further articles were identified through cross-referencing.
RESULTS
Sixty-eight cases were collected and reviewed. BBF secondary to tumors (32.3%, 22/68), including primary tumors (19.1%, 13/68) and hepatic metastases (13.2%, 9/68), shared the largest proportion of all cases. Biliptysis was found in all patients, and other symptoms were respiratory symptoms, such as irritating cough, fever (36/68) and jaundice (20/68). Half of the patients were treated by less-invasive methods such as endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage. Invasive approaches like surgery were used less frequently (41.7%, 28/67). The outcome was good at the end of the follow-up period in 28 cases (range, 2 wk to 72 mo), and the recovery rate was 87.7% (57/65).
CONCLUSION
The clinical diagnosis of BBF can be established by sputum analysis. Careful assessment of this condition is needed before therapeutic procedure. Invasive approaches should be considered only when non-invasive methods failed.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biliary Fistula; Bronchial Fistula; Databases, Factual; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 21987628
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v17.i33.3842