OBJECTIVE: Pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) and pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) are the commonly preferred methods of anastomosis after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). The ideal choice of anastomosis remains a matter of debate. DATA SOURCES: Articles published until end of March 2006 comparing PJ and PG after PD were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently assessed quality and eligibility of the studies and extracted data for further analysis. Meta-analysis was performed with a random-effects model by using weighted odds ratios. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Sixteen articles were included; meta-analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (RCT) revealed no significant difference between PJ and PG regarding overall postoperative complications, pancreatic fistula, intra-abdominal fluid collection, or mortality. On the contrary, analysis of 13 nonrandomized observational clinical studies (OCSs) showed significant results in favor of PG for the outcome parameters with a reduction of pancreatic fistula and mortality in favor of PG. CONCLUSIONS: All OCSs reported superiority of PG over PJ, most likely influenced by publication bias. In contrast, all RCTs failed to show advantage of a particular technique, suggesting that both PJ and PG provide equally good results. This meta-analysis yet again highlights the singular importance of performing well-designed RCTs and the role of evidence-based medicine in guiding modern surgical practice.
OBJECTIVE: Pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) and pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) are the commonly preferred methods of anastomosis after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). The ideal choice of anastomosis remains a matter of debate. DATA SOURCES: Articles published until end of March 2006 comparing PJ and PG after PD were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently assessed quality and eligibility of the studies and extracted data for further analysis. Meta-analysis was performed with a random-effects model by using weighted odds ratios. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Sixteen articles were included; meta-analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (RCT) revealed no significant difference between PJ and PG regarding overall postoperative complications, pancreatic fistula, intra-abdominal fluid collection, or mortality. On the contrary, analysis of 13 nonrandomized observational clinical studies (OCSs) showed significant results in favor of PG for the outcome parameters with a reduction of pancreatic fistula and mortality in favor of PG. CONCLUSIONS: All OCSs reported superiority of PG over PJ, most likely influenced by publication bias. In contrast, all RCTs failed to show advantage of a particular technique, suggesting that both PJ and PG provide equally good results. This meta-analysis yet again highlights the singular importance of performing well-designed RCTs and the role of evidence-based medicine in guiding modern surgical practice.
Authors: Phillip Knebel; Shafreena Kühn; Alexis B Ulrich; Markus W Büchler; Markus K Diener Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2012-02-29 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Tobias Keck; Simon Küsters; Ulrich Friedrich Wellner; Ulrich Theodor Hopt; Konrad Wojciech Karcz Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Parul J Shukla; Savio G Barreto; Mms Bedi; N Bheerappa; Adarsh Chaudhary; Md Gandhi; M Jacob; S Jesvanth; Dg Kannan; Vinay K Kapoor; A Kumar; Kk Maudar; Hariharan Ramesh; Ra Sastry; Rajan Saxena; Ajit Sewkani; S Sharma; Shailesh V Shrikhande; A Singh; Rajneesh K Singh; R Surendran; Subodh Varshney; V Verma; V Vimalraj Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Marco Niedergethmann; Niloufar Dusch; Rizky Widyaningsih; Christel Weiss; Peter Kienle; Stefan Post Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Ronnie T P Poon; Sheung Tat Fan; Chung Mau Lo; Kelvin K Ng; Wai Key Yuen; Chun Yeung; John Wong Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 12.969