A systemic review and an updated meta-analysis: minimally invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhao Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5440387 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A systemic review and an updated meta-analysis: minimally invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Zhao Zhanwei Z Yin Zifang Z Hang Zhenning Z Ji Gang G Feng Quanxin Q Zhao Qingchuan Q
Scientific reports 20170522 1
The feasible of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains controversial when compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to summarise the available evidence to compare MIPD vs OPD. We systemically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies published through February 2016. The primary endpoint was postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF, grade B/C). A total of 27 studies involving 14,231 patients (2,377 MIPD and 11, ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:There is ongoing debate regarding the usefulness of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study aimed to analyze all the randomized control trials published including the most recent one. The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and MOOSE guidelines. Heterogeneity was measured using Q tests and I 2. The random-effects models were used to summarize the relative risks, odds ratios, and mean differences as appropriate. Four RCTs were included consisting of 818 patients. Four hundred eleven patients were in the laparoscopic group and 407 in the open pancreaticoduodenectomy group. Weighted baseline patient characteristics were similar except more patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and more males were there in the open pancreaticoduodenectomy group. There was no difference in-hospital stay, 90-day complication rate, 90-day mortality, R1 resection, postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and bile leak between the two groups. Operative time was more in the laparoscopic group. Blood loss [mean difference - 132.12 ml (- 172.60, - 91.65)] and surgical site infection [risk ratio 0.41 (0.17-1.0)] were significantly lesser in laparoscopic group. There was no benefit in-hospital stay or clinical outcomes after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Blood loss and surgical site infection were lesser in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13193-022-01572-0.
| S-EPMC9845471 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC8184540 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile more and more open procedures now routinely performed using laparoscopy, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal procedures. Therefore, we carried out this meta-analysis to evaluate whether MIPD is safe, feasible and worthwhile.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify studies published between January 1994 and November 2013 comparing MIPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Intraoperative outcomes, oncologic safety, postoperative complications, and postoperative recovery were evaluated.Results11 retrospective studies representing 869 patients (327 MIPDs, 542 OPDs) were included. MIPD was associated with a reduction in estimated blood loss (MD -361.93 ml, 95% CI -519.22 to -204.63 ml, p<0.001, I(2) = 94%), wound infection (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78, p = 0.007, I(2) = 0%), and hospital stay (MD -2.64 d, 95% CI -4.23 to -1.05 d, p = 0.001, I(2) = 78%). However, it brings longer operative time (MD 105 min, 95% CI 49.73 to 160.26 min, p<0.001, I(2) = 93%). There were no significant differences between the two procedures in likelihood of overall complications (p = 0.05), pancreatic fistula (PF) (p = 0.86), delayed gastric empting (DGE) (p = 0.96), positive surgical margins (p = 0.07), retrieval of lymph nodes (p = 0.48), reoperation (p = 0.16) and mortality (p = 0.64).ConclusionsOur results suggest that MIPD is currently safe, feasible and worthwhile. But considering the selection bias, complexity of MIPD and lack of long-term oncologic outcomes, we suggest it be performed in a high-volume pancreatic surgery center in selected patients.
| S-EPMC4132100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear.MethodsStudies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis.ResultsOne hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = -0.54 ml; 95% CI, -0.88 ~ -0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = -3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ -2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes.ConclusionOur study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.
| S-EPMC5701376 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review was to compare minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) by using meta-analytical techniques.MethodologyMedline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. Data from included studies were extracted for the following outcomes: operative time, overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, blood loss, postoperative hemorrhage, yield of harvested lymph nodes, R1 rate, length of hospital stay, and readmissions. Random and fix effect meta-analyses were undertaken.ResultsInitial reference search yielded 747 articles. Thorough evaluation resulted in 12 papers, which were analyzed. The total number of patients was 2186 (705 in MIPD group and 1481 in OPD). Although there were no differences in overall morbidity between groups, we noticed reduced blood loss, delayed gastric emptying, and length of hospital stay in favor of MIPD. In contrary, meta-analysis of operative time revealed significant differences in favor of open procedures. Remaining parameters did not differ among groups.ConclusionOur review suggests that although MIPD takes longer, it may be associated with reduced blood loss, shortened LOS, and comparable rate of perioperative complications. Due to heterogeneity of included studies and differences in baseline characteristics between analyzed groups, the analysis of short-term oncological outcomes does not allow drawing unequivocal conclusions.
| S-EPMC5506213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for cervical cancer patients remains controversial. We evaluated the survival outcomes of cervical cancer patients who underwent different surgical approaches. Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to February 2020, using the MESH terms "minimally invasive surgical procedures" and "Uterine Cervical Neoplasms." Included were all original comparative studies and trials both published and unpublished in English that were related to minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for cervical cancer patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage < IIB. Begg's and Egger's regressions were used to evaluate publication bias. Results: This meta-analysis included 28 studies enrolling 18,961 patients with cervical cancer. The overall analyses indicated that cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage < IIB who underwent minimally invasive surgery had a lower rate of OS (HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.06-1.92, P = 0.019) and DFS (HR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.21-1.85, P < 0.001) than those who underwent open surgery. Moreover, minimally invasive surgery could lower OS (HR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.50-3.52, P < 0.001) and DFS (HR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.36-2.76, P < 0.001) of cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage ≤ IB1 compared to open surgery. However, there were no significant differences in OS (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.65-1.76, P = 0.801) and DFS (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.65-2.19, P = 0.559) in patients with tumors < 2 cm between the two groups. Conclusions: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with poor survival outcomes compared to open surgery. Patients with FIGO 2009 stage ≤ IB1 cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery have lower OS and DFS rates than those who underwent open surgery. Therefore, open surgery should be performed for cervical cancer patients. However, patients with tumors < 2 cm might take the most advantage of minimally invasive surgery without increasing poor prognosis. There are some limitations in the meta-analysis, which needs further high-quality multicenter studies to confirm and update our findings.
| S-EPMC7396529 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMinimally invasive techniques are increasingly common in cancer surgery. A recent randomized clinical trial has brought into question the safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.ObjectiveTo quantify the risk of recurrence and death associated with minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer reported in observational studies optimized to control for confounding.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (inception to March 26, 2020) performed in an academic medical setting.Study selectionIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, observational studies were abstracted that used survival analyses to compare outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) and open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IA1-IIA) cervical cancer. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and included studies with scores of at least 7 points that controlled for confounding by tumor size or stage.Data extraction and synthesisThe Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) checklist was used to abstract data independently by multiple observers. Random-effects models were used to pool associations and to analyze the association between surgical approach and oncologic outcomes.Main outcomes and measuresRisk of recurrence or death and risk of all-cause mortality.ResultsForty-nine studies were identified, of which 15 were included in the meta-analysis. Of 9499 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy, 49% (n = 4684) received minimally invasive surgery; of these, 57% (n = 2675) received robot-assisted laparoscopy. There were 530 recurrences and 451 deaths reported. The pooled hazard of recurrence or death was 71% higher among patients who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy compared with those who underwent open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.15; P < .001), and the hazard of death was 56% higher (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.16-2.11; P = .004). Heterogeneity of associations was low to moderate. No association was found between the prevalence of robot-assisted surgery and the magnitude of association between minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and hazard of recurrence or death (2.0% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -3.4% to 7.7%]) or all-cause mortality (3.7% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -4.5% to 12.6%]).Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies found that among patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with an elevated risk of recurrence and death compared with open surgery.
| S-EPMC7290695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The first line treatment regimen for esophageal cancer is still surgical resection and the choice of surgical scheme depends on surgeon. Now the efficacy comparison of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) is still controversial. AIM:To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of HMIE and OE in patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS:PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for related articles. The odds ratio (OR) or standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to evaluate the effectiveness of HMIE and OE. RESULTS:Seventeen studies including a total of 2397 patients were selected. HMIE was significantly associated with less blood loss (SMD = -0.43, 95%CI: -0.66, -0.20; P = 0.0002) and lower incidence of pulmonary complications (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.57, 0.90; P = 0.004). No significant differences were seen in the lymph node yield (SMD = 0.11, 95%CI: -0.08, 0.30; P = 0.26), operation time (SMD = 0.24, 95%CI: -0.14, 0.61; P = 0.22), total complications rate (OR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.46, 0.99; P = 0.05), cardiac complication rate (OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.62, 1.34; P = 0.64), anastomotic leak rate (OR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.67, 1.35; P = 0.78), duration of intensive care unit stay (SMD = -0.01, 95%CI: -0.21, 0.19; P = 0.93), duration of hospital stay (SMD = -0.13, 95%CI: -0.28, 0.01; P = 0.08), and total mortality rates (OR = 0.70, 95%CI: 0.47, 1.06; P = 0.09) between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION:Compared with the OE, HMIE shows less blood loss and pulmonary complications. However, further studies are necessary to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes of HMIE.
| S-EPMC6883181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the available evidence regarding short-term outcomes between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).MethodsStudies were identified by searching databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library up to March 2019 without language restrictions. Results of these searches were filtered according to a set of eligibility criteria and analyzed in line with PRISMA guidelines.ResultsThere were 33 studies included with a total of 13 269 patients in our review, out of which 4948 cases were of MIE and 8321 cases were of OE. The pooled results suggested that MIE had a better outcome regarding all-cause respiratory complications (RCs) (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.41-0.78, P = <0.001), in-hospital duration (SMD = -0.51; 95% CI = -0.78-0.24; P = <0.001), and blood loss (SMD = -1.44; 95% CI = -1.95-0.93; P = <0.001). OE was associated with shorter duration of operation time, while no statistically significant differences were observed regarding other outcomes. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed for a number of different postoperative events.ConclusionsOur study indicated that MIE had more favorable outcomes than OE from the perspective of short-term outcomes. Further large-scale, multicenter randomized control trials are needed to explore the long-term survival outcomes after MIE versus OE.
| S-EPMC7262946 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe previous studies agree that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has better function outcomes, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, when compared to open-TLIF. However, there are no significance differences on operative time, complication, and reoperation rate between the two procedures. This could be from less relative literatures and lower grade evidence. The further meta-analysis is needed with more and higher grade evidences to compare the above two TLIF procedures.MethodsProspective and retrospective studies that compared open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF were identified by searching the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP database (the literature search comprised Medical Subject Heading terms and key words or Emtree term). The retrieval time ranged from the date when the database was founded to January 2015. Pooled risk ratios (RR s) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the clinical outcomes and perioperative data.ResultsTwenty-four studies (n = 1967 patients) were included in this review (n = 951, open-TLIF, n = 1016, MIS-TLIF). MIS-TLIF was associated with a significant decrease in the visual analog score (VAS)-back pain score (WMD = -0.44; P = 0.001), Oswestry Disabilities Index (WMD = -1.57; P = 0.005), early ambulation (WMD = -1.77; P = 0.0001), less blood loss (WMD = -265.59; P < 0.00001), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD = -1.89; P < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in the fusion rate (RR = 0.99; P = 0.34), VAS-leg pain (WMD = -0.10; P = 0.26), complication rate (RR = 0.84; P = 0.35), operation time (WMD = -5.23; P = 0.82), or reoperation rate (RR = 0.73; P = 0.32).ConclusionsMIS-TLIF resulted in a similar fusion rate with better functional outcome, less blood loss, shorter ambulation, and hospital stay; furthermore, it did not increase the complication or reoperation rate based on the existing evidence.
| S-EPMC4989430 | biostudies-literature