Dataset Information

Duct-to-mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Zhang S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5542280 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe outcomes of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy have not been adequately compared with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of these two pancreaticoduodenectomy procedures specifically in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.MethodsBefore this study was initiated, a specific protocol was designed and has been registered in PROSEPRO (ID: CRD42020149438). Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1994 and October 2019. Overall survival, disease-free survival, and time to commencing adjuvant chemotherapy were the primary endpoint measurements, whereas perioperative and short-term outcomes were the secondary endpoints.ResultsThe final analysis included 9 retrospective cohorts comprising 11,242 patients (1377 who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy and 9865 who underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy). There were no significant differences in the patients' overall survival, operative time, postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, rate of vein resection, number of harvested lymph nodes, or rate of positive lymph nodes between the two approaches. However, disease-free survival, time to starting adjuvant chemotherapy, length of hospital stay, and rate of negative margins in patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy showed improvements relative to those in patients who underwent open surgery.ConclusionsMinimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy provides similar or even improved perioperative, short-term, and long-term oncological outcomes when compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the long-term survival, mortality, morbidity and the operation-related events in patients with periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma undergoing pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) and pylorus-resecting pancreaticoduodenectomy (PRPD).MethodA systematic search of literature databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science) was performed to identify studies. Outcome measures comparing PPPD versus PRPD for periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma were long-term survival, mortality, morbidity (overall morbidity, delayed gastric emptying [DGE], pancreatic fistula, wound infection, postoperative bleeding, biliary leakage, ascites and gastroenterostomy leakage) and operation related events (hospital stays, operating time, intraoperative blood loss and red blood cell transfusions).ResultsEight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 622 patients were identified and included in the analysis. Among these patients, it revealed no difference in long-term survival between the PPPD and PRPD groups (HR?=?0.23, p?=?0.11). There was a lower rate of DGE (RR?=?2.35, p?=?0.04, 95% CI, 1.06-5.21) with PRPD. Mortality, overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula, wound infection, postoperative bleeding, biliary leakage, ascites and gastroenterostomy leakage were not significantly different between the groups. PPPDs were performed more quickly than PRPDs (WMD?=?53.25 minutes, p?=?0.01, 95% CI, 12.53-93.97); and there was less estimated intraoperative blood loss (WMD?=?365.21 ml, p?=?0.006, 95% CI, 102.71-627.71) and fewer red blood cell transfusions (WMD?=?0.29 U, p?=?0.003, 95% CI, 0.10-0.48) in patients undergoing PPPD. The hospital stays showed no significant difference.ConclusionsPPPD had advantages over PRPD in operating time, intraoperative blood loss and red blood cell transfusions, but had a significantly higher rate of DGE for periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. PPPD and PRPD had comparable mortality and morbidity including pancreatic fistulas, wound infections, postoperative bleeding, biliary leakage, ascites and gastroenterostomy leakage. Our conclusions were limited by the available data. Further evaluations of high-quality RCTs are needed.

Project description:BackgroundMargin status is one of the most significant prognostic factors after curative surgery for middle bile duct (MBD) cancer. Bile duct resection (BDR) is commonly converted to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) to achieve R0 resection. Additionally, adjuvant treatment is actively performed after surgery to improve survival. However, the wider the range of surgery, the higher the chance of complications; this, in turn, makes adjuvant treatment impossible. Nevertheless, no definitive surgical strategy considers the possible complication rates and subsequent adjuvant treatment. We aimed to investigate the appropriate surgical type considering the margin status, complications, and adjuvant treatment in MBD cancer.Materials and methodsFrom 2008 to 2017, 520 patients diagnosed with MBD cancer at the Samsung Medical Center were analyzed retrospectively according to the operation type, margin status, complications, and adjuvant treatment. The R1 group was defined as having a carcinoma margin.ResultsThe 5-year survival rate for patients who underwent R0 and R1 resection was 54.4% and 33.3%, respectively (p = 0.131). Prognostic factors affecting the overall survival were the age, preoperative CA19-9 level, T stage, and N stage, but not the operation type, margin status, complications, or adjuvant treatment. The complication rates were 11.5% and 29.8% in the BDR and PD groups, respectively (p < 0.001). We observed no significant difference in the adjuvant treatment ratio according to complications (p = 0.675). Patients with PD who underwent R0 resection and could not undergo chemotherapy because of complications reported better survival rates than those with BDR who underwent R1 resection after adjuvant treatment (p = 0.003).ConclusionThe survival outcome of patients with R1 margins who underwent BDR did not match those with R0 margins after PD, even after adjuvant treatment. Due to improvements in surgical techniques and the ability to resolve complications, surgical complications exert a marginal effect on survival. Therefore, surgeons should secure R0 margins to achieve the best survival outcomes.

Dataset Information

Duct-to-mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets