Antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Huttner FJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8750387 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Hüttner Felix J FJ Klotz Rosa R Ulrich Alexis A Büchler Markus W MW Probst Pascal P Diener Markus K MK
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20220111
<h4>Background</h4>Pancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialised 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 retrocolic route. The debate about the more favourable technique for bowel reconstruction is ongoin ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPancreatic 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.ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness and safety of antecolic and retrocolic gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.Search methodsWe 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 criteriaWe 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 analysisTwo 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 resultsOf 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' conclusionsThere 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.
| S-EPMC6457795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeDespite the increasing number of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and LPD with robotic reconstruction (LPD-RR) are still valuable surgical options for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). This study introduces the surgical techniques, tips, and outcomes of our experience with LPD and LPD-RR.MethodsBetween March 2014 and July 2021, 122 and 48 patients underwent LPD and LPD-RR respectively, at CHA Bundang Medical Center in Korea. The operative settings, procedures, and trocar placements were identical in both approaches; however, different trocars were used. We introduced our techniques of retraction methods for Kocherization and uncinate process dissection, pancreatic reconstruction, pancreatic division, and protection using the round ligament. The perioperative surgical outcomes of LPD and LPD-RR were compared.ResultsBaseline demographics of patients in the LPD and LPD-RR groups were comparable, but the LPD group had older age (65.5 ± 11.6 years vs. 60.0 ± 14.1 years, p = 0.009) and lesser preoperative chemotherapy (15.6% vs. 35.4%, p = 0.008). The proportion of malignant disease was similar (LPD group, 86.1% vs. LPD-RR group, 83.3%; p = 0.759). Perioperative outcomes were also comparable, including operative time, estimated blood loss, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (LPD group, 9.0% vs. LPD-RR group, 10.4%; p = 0.684), and major postoperative complication rates (LPD group, 14.8% vs. LPD-RR group, 6.2%; p = 0.082).ConclusionBoth LPD and LPR-RR can be safely performed by experienced surgeons with acceptable surgical outcomes. Further investigations are required to evaluate the objective benefits of robotic surgical systems in MIPD and establish widely acceptable standardized MIPD techniques.
| S-EPMC10280110 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAn increasing body of literature is supporting the safety of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy, but there are limited comparative studies between laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of postoperative 30-day overall complications between laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.MethodsPatients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy were abstracted from the 2014-2015 pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to determine if the type of minimally invasive approach was associated with 30-day overall complications.ResultsWe identified 428 minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy cases, of which 235 (55%) were performed laparoscopically and 193 (45%) robotically. Patients who underwent the robotic approach were more likely to be white compared to those who underwent the laparoscopic approach and were less likely to have pulmonary disease, undergo preoperative radiotherapy, and have vascular and multivisceral resection. On multivariable analysis, we found that the type of minimally invasive approach, whether laparoscopic or robotic, was not associated with overall complications. The predictors of 30-day overall complications were higher body mass index (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.09), vascular resection (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.23-3.58), and longer operative time (OR, 1.002; 95% CI, 1.001-1.004).ConclusionsRobotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was associated with a similar 30-day overall complication rate to laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Further studies are needed to corroborate these findings and to establish the best approach to perform this complex operation.
| S-EPMC5789456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurgical resection is the only cure for hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) malignancy. In the era of multidisciplinary approaches and neoadjuvant therapies for locally advanced, borderline resectable tumors, the feasibility and efficacy of en bloc vascular resection has been validated across multiple studies. However, the variability of venous anatomy within the perihepatic and peri-portal regions necessitates familiarity with alternative resection and reconstruction techniques appropriate to the specific region of tumor invasion.MethodsTo organize these paradigms, the venous system has been divided into five zones: 1) hepatic hilum; 2) hepatoduodenal ligament; 3) portal vein/splenic vein confluence, which is further subdivided into right (3a) and left (3b); 4) infra-confluence; and 5) splenic vein.ResultsThis study systematically analyzes the anatomic considerations and clinical scenarios specific to each zone to organize the necessary preparative maneuvers, surgical procedures, and vascular reconstruction techniques to achieve an R0 resection. The anatomic and tumor-specific factors which deem a specimen unresectable are also explored. Surgical videos demonstrating these techniques are presented.DiscussionPreparation and familiarity with venous reconstruction maneuvers is essential for an oncologically effective operation, and can be safely achieved by utilizing this logical anatomic and procedural framework.
| S-EPMC5061022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurgery remains the mainstay of therapy for pancreatic head (PH) and periampullary carcinoma (PC) and provides the only chance of cure. Improvements of surgical technique, increased surgical experience and advances in anesthesia, intensive care and parenteral nutrition have substantially decreased surgical complications and increased survival. We evaluate the effects of reconstruction type, complications and pathological factors on survival and quality of life.Materials and methodsThis is a prospective study to evaluate the impact of various reconstruction methods of the pancreatic remnant after pancreaticoduodenectomy and the pathological characteristics of PC patients over 3.5 years. Patient characteristics and descriptive analysis in the three variable methods either with or without stent were compared with Chi-square test. Multivariate analysis was performed with the logistic regression analysis test and multinomial logistic regression analysis test. Survival rate was analyzed by use Kaplan-Meier test.ResultsForty-one consecutive patients with PC were enrolled. There were 23 men (56.1%) and 18 women (43.9%), with a median age of 56 years (16 to 70 years). There were 24 cases of PH cancer, eight cases of PC, four cases of distal CBD cancer and five cases of duodenal carcinoma. Nine patients underwent duct-to-mucosa pancreatico jejunostomy (PJ), 17 patients underwent telescoping pancreatico jejunostomy (PJ) and 15 patients pancreaticogastrostomy (PG). The pancreatic duct was stented in 30 patients while in 11 patients, the duct was not stented. The PJ duct-to-mucosa caused significantly less leakage, but longer operative and reconstructive times. Telescoping PJ was associated with the shortest hospital stay. There were 5 postoperative mortalities, while postoperative morbidities included pancreatic fistula-6 patients, delayed gastric emptying in-11, GI fistula-3, wound infection-12, burst abdomen-6 and pulmonary infection-2. Factors that predisposed to development of pancreatic leakage included male gender, preoperative albumin < 30g/dl, pre-operative hemoglobin < 10g/dl and non PJ-duct to mucosa type of reconstruction. The ampullary cancers presented at an earlier stage and had a better prognosis than pancreatic cancer and cholangiocarcinoma. Early stage (I and II), negative surgical margin, well and moderate differentiation and absence of lymph node involvement significantly predicted for longer survival.ConclusionsPJ duct-to-mucosa anastomosis was safe, caused least pancreatic leakage and least blood loss compared with the other methods of reconstruction and was associated with early return back to home and prolonged disease free and overall survival.
| S-EPMC3889193 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the most complex abdominal operations to perform, and it is usually conducted for tumours of the periampullary region and chronic pancreatitis. Minimally invasive surgery has been progressively being developed for pancreatic surgery, first with the advent of hybrid-laparoscopy and recently with total laparoscopic surgery. Issues including the safety and efficacy of total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) are currently being debated. Studies comparing these two surgical techniques are emerging, and large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are lacking but are clearly required.Methods and analysisTJDBPS01 is a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority trial in 14 centres with pancreatic surgery experts who have performed ≥104 TLPDs and OPDs. A total of 656 patients who will undergo PD are randomly allocated to the TLPD group or OPD group in a 1:1 ratio. The trial hypothesis is that TLPD has superior or equivalent safety and advantages in postoperative recovery compared with OPD. The primary outcome is the postoperative length of stay.Ethics and disseminationThe Instituitional Review Board Approval of Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology has approved this trial and will be routinely monitoring the trial at frequent intervals, as will an independent third-party organisation. Any results from this trial (publications, conference presentations) will be published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings.Trial registration numberNCT03138213.
| S-EPMC7045091 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are used for soft-tissue support in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Little high-level evidence supports the use of one ADM over another. The authors sought to compare Cortiva 1-mm Allograft Dermis with AlloDerm RTU (ready to use), the most studied ADM in the literature.MethodsA single-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing Cortiva with AlloDerm in prepectoral and subpectoral immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction was performed at 2 academic hospitals from March of 2017 to December of 2021. Reconstructions were direct to implant (DTI) or tissue expander (TE). Primary outcome was reconstructive failure, defined as TE explantation before planned further reconstruction, or explantation of DTI reconstructions before 3 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were additional complications, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and cost.ResultsThere were 302 patients included: 151 AlloDerm (280 breasts), 151 Cortiva (277 breasts). The majority of reconstructions in both cohorts consisted of TE (62% versus 38% DTI), smooth device (68% versus 32% textured), and prepectoral (80% versus 20% subpectoral). Reconstructive failure was no different between ADMs (AlloDerm 9.3% versus Cortiva 8.3%; P = 0.68). There were no additional differences in any complications or PROs between ADMs. Seromas occurred in 7.6% of Cortiva but 12% of AlloDerm cases, in which the odds of seroma formation were two-fold higher (odds ratio, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.01 to 3.67]; P = 0.047). AlloDerm variable cost was 10% to 15% more than Cortiva, and there were no additional cost differences.ConclusionWhen assessing safety, clinical performance, PROs, and cost, Cortiva is noninferior to AlloDerm in immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction, and may be less expensive, with lower risk of seroma formation.Clinical question/level of evidenceTherapeutic, I.
| S-EPMC11412571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The authors summarize current methods for reconstructing partial auricular defects resulting from trauma, neoplasm, or congenital defects. They also review the anatomy and embryology of the ear as this is critical for proper reconstruction. Defects of the auricle are divided into upper-third, middle-third, and lower-third defects. Methods of total auricular reconstruction are also briefly discussed as these methods can provide more superior reconstruction than partial techniques in select cases.
| S-EPMC3312155 | biostudies-other
Project description:We aimed to compare the two most commonly used pancreatico-jejunostomy reconstruction techniques-duct-to-mucosa and invagination.Databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and several clinical trial registration centers were searched. Randomized controlled trials that compared duct-to-mucosa and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy techniques after pancreaticoduodenectomy were included and analyzed.In total, seven RCTs were included, involving 850 patients. The difference in postoperative pancreatic fistula rate between the duct-to-mucosa and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy was not significant (RR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.76-1.39, P = 0.86). There was no significant difference in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula between the two groups (RR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.15-3.96, P = 0.77). The overall morbidity, overall mortality, delayed gastric emptying, intra-abdominal collection, reoperation rate, and length of hospital stay between the two groups were not significantly different. Sensitivity analysis showed that the meta-analysis was stable. Further, no significant publication bias was seen.Duct-to-mucosa and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy techniques after pancreaticoduodenectomy were comparable in terms of postoperative pancreatic fistula incidence and other parameters.
| S-EPMC5542280 | biostudies-other
Project description:INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has a high mortality rate with limited treatment options. One option is pancreaticoduodenectomy, although complete resection may require venous resection. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with venous resection and reconstruction is becoming a more common practice with many choices for venous reconstruction. We describe the technique of using the left renal vein as a conduit for venous reconstruction during pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: The technique for use of the left renal vein as an interposition graft for venous reconstruction during pancreaticoduodenectomy is described as well as outcomes for nine patients that have undergone the procedure. RESULTS: Nine patients, seven men, with a mean age of 57 years, have undergone the operation. There were eight interposition grafts and one patch graft. Mean operating time was 7.8 hours, and mean tumor size was 3.4 cm. Eight patients had node-positive disease, and six had involvement of the vein. Mean hospital stay was 14 days and perioperative morbidity included a superficial wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, ascites, and gastrointestinal bleeding in one patient each. Creatinine ranged from 0.8-1.1 mg/dl preoperatively and from 0.7-1.3 mg/dl at discharge. Mean follow-up was 6.8 months with normal creatinine values noted through the follow-up period. Two patients had died during follow-up from recurrent disease at 8.3 and 18.2 months after the operation. CONCLUSIONS: The left renal vein provides an additional choice for an autologous graft during pancreaticoduodenectomy with venous resection. The ease of harvesting the graft and maintenance of renal function distinguish its use.
| S-EPMC1852389 | biostudies-other