OBJECTIVE: Comparison of effectiveness between the pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy ("pylorus-preserving Whipple" [PPW]) and the classic Whipple (CW) procedure. METHODS: A systematic literature search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Biosis, Science Citation Index, Ovid Journals) was performed to identify all eligible articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PPW versus CW for periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma were eligible for inclusion. The methodologic quality of included studies was evaluated independently by 2 authors. Quantitative data on perioperative parameters (blood loss, transfusion, operation time, and length of hospital stay), mortality, morbidity, and survival were extracted from included studies for meta-analysis. Pooled estimates of overall treatment effect were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: In total, 1235 abstracts were retrieved and checked for eligibility and 6 RCTs finally included. The critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodologic quality and outcome parameters. The comparison of overall in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.40; P = 0.18), morbidity (odds ratio 0.89; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.62; P = 0.69), and survival (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.07; P = 0.11) showed no significant difference. However, operating time (weighted mean difference, -68.26 minutes; 95% CI, -105.70 to -30.83; P = 0.0004), and intraoperative blood loss (weighted mean difference, -766 mL; 95% CI, -965.26 to -566.74; P = 0.00001) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. CONCLUSION: Hence, in the absence of relevant differences in mortality, morbidity, and survival, the PPW seems to be as effective as the CW. Given obvious clinical and methodological interstudy heterogeneity, efforts should be intensified in the future to perform high quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well defined outcome parameters.
OBJECTIVE: Comparison of effectiveness between the pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy ("pylorus-preserving Whipple" [PPW]) and the classic Whipple (CW) procedure. METHODS: A systematic literature search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Biosis, Science Citation Index, Ovid Journals) was performed to identify all eligible articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PPW versus CW for periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma were eligible for inclusion. The methodologic quality of included studies was evaluated independently by 2 authors. Quantitative data on perioperative parameters (blood loss, transfusion, operation time, and length of hospital stay), mortality, morbidity, and survival were extracted from included studies for meta-analysis. Pooled estimates of overall treatment effect were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: In total, 1235 abstracts were retrieved and checked for eligibility and 6 RCTs finally included. The critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodologic quality and outcome parameters. The comparison of overall in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.40; P = 0.18), morbidity (odds ratio 0.89; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.62; P = 0.69), and survival (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.07; P = 0.11) showed no significant difference. However, operating time (weighted mean difference, -68.26 minutes; 95% CI, -105.70 to -30.83; P = 0.0004), and intraoperative blood loss (weighted mean difference, -766 mL; 95% CI, -965.26 to -566.74; P = 0.00001) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. CONCLUSION: Hence, in the absence of relevant differences in mortality, morbidity, and survival, the PPW seems to be as effective as the CW. Given obvious clinical and methodological interstudy heterogeneity, efforts should be intensified in the future to perform high quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well defined outcome parameters.
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Elizabeth Ward; Alicia Samuels; Ram C Tiwari; Asma Ghafoor; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Axel Richter; Marco Niedergethmann; Jörg W Sturm; Dietmar Lorenz; Stefan Post; Michael Trede Journal: World J Surg Date: 2003-02-27 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: S Pedrazzoli; V DiCarlo; R Dionigi; F Mosca; P Pederzoli; C Pasquali; G Klöppel; K Dhaene; F Michelassi Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Wim Laleman; Annelies Verreth; Baki Topal; Raymond Aerts; Mina Komuta; Tania Roskams; Schalk Van der Merwe; David Cassiman; Frederik Nevens; Chris Verslype; Werner Van Steenbergen Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-05-25 Impact factor: 4.584
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