Dataset Information

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy-systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The purpose of this systematic review was to compare minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) by using meta-analytical techniques.

Methodology

Medline, 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.

Results

Initial 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.

Conclusion

Our 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.

SUBMITTER: Pedziwiatr M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5506213 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy-systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pędziwiatr Michał M Małczak Piotr P Pisarska Magdalena M Major Piotr P Wysocki Michał M Stefura Tomasz T Budzyński Andrzej A

Langenbeck's archives of surgery 20170509 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>The purpose of this systematic review was to compare minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) by using meta-analytical techniques.<h4>Methodology</h4>Medline, 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 ...[more]

PMID: 28488004

Similar Datasets

Project description:Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.

Project description:BackgroundLocally advanced colon cancer is considered a relative contraindication for minimally invasive proctectomy (MIP), and minimally invasive versus conventional open proctectomy (COP) for locally advanced colon cancer has not been studied.MethodsWe have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on minimally invasive (robotic and laparoscopic) and COP. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023407029).ResultsThere are 10132 participants including 21 articles. Compared with COP, patients who underwent MIP had less operation time (SMD 0.48; CI 0.32 to 0.65; I2 = 0%, P = .000), estimated blood loss (MD -1.23; CI -1.90 to -0.56; I2 = 95%, P < .0001), the median time to semi-liquid diet (SMD -0.43; CI -0.70 to -0.15; I2 = 0%, P = .002), time to the first flatus (SMD -0.97; CI -1.30 to -0.63; I2 = 7%, P < .0001), intraoperative blood transfusion (RR 0.33; CI 0.24 to 0.46; I2 = 0%, P < .0001) in perioperative outcomes. Compared with COP, patients who underwent MIP had fewer overall complications (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I2 = 22.4%, P = .023), postoperative complications (RR 0.79; CI 0.69 to 0.90; I2 = 0%, P = .001), and urinary retention (RR 0.63; CI 0.44 to 0.90; I2 = 0%, P = .011) in perioperative outcomes.ConclusionThis study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the difference between the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive and open treatment of locally advanced colon cancer through meta-analysis. Minimally invasive proctectomy is better than COP in postoperative and perioperative outcomes. However, there is no difference in oncological outcomes. This also provides an evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, multi-center RCT research is also needed to draw more scientific and rigorous conclusions in the future.

Project description:BackgroundMIGS have been developed as a surgical alternative for glaucomatous patients.PurposeTo analyze the change in intraocular pressure (IOP) and glaucoma medications using different MIGS devices (Trabectome, iStent, Excimer Laser Trabeculotomy (ELT), iStent Supra, CyPass, XEN, Hydrus, Fugo Blade, Ab interno canaloplasty, Goniscopy-assisted transluminal trabeculotomy) as a solo procedure or in association with phacoemulsification.MethodsRandomized control trials (RCT) and non-RCT (non randomized comparative studies, NRS, and before-after studies) were included. Studies with at least one year of follow-up in patients affected by primary open angle glaucoma, pseudoexfoliative glaucoma or pigmentary glaucoma were considered. Risk of Bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and the ROBINS-I tools. The main outcome was the effect of MIGS devices compared to medical therapy, cataract surgery, other glaucoma surgeries and other MIGS on both IOP and use of glaucoma medications 12 months after surgery. Outcomes measures were the mean difference in the change of IOP and glaucoma medication compared to baseline at one and two years and all ocular adverse events. The current meta-analysis is registered on PROSPERO (reference n° CRD42016037280).ResultsOver a total of 3,069 studies, nine RCT and 21 case series with a total of 2.928 eyes were included. Main concerns about risk of bias in RCTs were lack of blinding, allocation concealment and attrition bias while in non-RCTs they were represented by patients' selection, masking of participants and co-intervention management. Limited evidence was found based on both RCTs and non RCTs that compared MIGS surgery with medical therapy or other MIGS. In before-after series, MIGS surgery seemed effective in lowering both IOP and glaucoma drug use. MIGS showed a good safety profile: IOP spikes were the most frequent complications and no cases of infection or BCVA loss due to glaucoma were reported.ConclusionsAlthough MIGS seem efficient in the reduction of the IOP and glaucoma medication and show good safety profile, this evidence is mainly derived from non-comparative studies and further, good quality RCTs are warranted.

Dataset Information

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy-systematic review and meta-analysis.

Purpose

Methodology

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy-systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets