S B Xu1, Y P Zhu, W Zhou, K Xie, Y P Mou. 1. Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China. xsbing2@163.com
Abstract
AIMS: Central pancreatectomy (CP) protects more normal pancreatic parenchyma than distal pancreatectomy (DP), but the safety, feasibility and long-term benefit of CP are inconclusive. This meta-analysis aims to ascertain the relative merits of CP. METHODS: A systematic literature research was performed to identify comparative studies on CP and DP. Perioperative and long-term outcomes constituted the end points. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using either fixed effects or random effects model. RESULTS: Nine studies with 735 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Although CP cost more operative time than DP, the two groups had no significant differences in the volume of intraoperative blood loss, rate of intraoperative blood transfusion and length of postoperative hospital stay. According to the postoperative outcomes, although the CP group had higher overall complication rate (Fixed effects model; RR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.05-1.62; P < 0.05) as well as overall pancreatic fistula rate (Fixed effects model; RR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.20-2.08; P < 0.05), the two groups did not differ significantly in the fateful surgical complications such as clinically significant pancreatic fistula (Grades B and C), postoperative bleeding, reoperation and intra-abdominal effusion/abscess. Furthermore, the perioperative mortality rate was comparable between the two groups. During the follow-up period, the patients after DP were more likely to suffer pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (Fixed effects model; RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.32-0.86; P < 0.05) and endocrine impairment (Fixed effects model; RR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.11-0.33; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: CP was still an acceptable and feasible procedure, especially when considering the postoperative pancreatic function preservation ability by CP.
AIMS: Central pancreatectomy (CP) protects more normal pancreatic parenchyma than distal pancreatectomy (DP), but the safety, feasibility and long-term benefit of CP are inconclusive. This meta-analysis aims to ascertain the relative merits of CP. METHODS: A systematic literature research was performed to identify comparative studies on CP and DP. Perioperative and long-term outcomes constituted the end points. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using either fixed effects or random effects model. RESULTS: Nine studies with 735 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Although CP cost more operative time than DP, the two groups had no significant differences in the volume of intraoperative blood loss, rate of intraoperative blood transfusion and length of postoperative hospital stay. According to the postoperative outcomes, although the CP group had higher overall complication rate (Fixed effects model; RR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.05-1.62; P < 0.05) as well as overall pancreatic fistula rate (Fixed effects model; RR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.20-2.08; P < 0.05), the two groups did not differ significantly in the fateful surgical complications such as clinically significant pancreatic fistula (Grades B and C), postoperative bleeding, reoperation and intra-abdominal effusion/abscess. Furthermore, the perioperative mortality rate was comparable between the two groups. During the follow-up period, the patients after DP were more likely to suffer pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (Fixed effects model; RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.32-0.86; P < 0.05) and endocrine impairment (Fixed effects model; RR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.11-0.33; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: CP was still an acceptable and feasible procedure, especially when considering the postoperative pancreatic function preservation ability by CP.