OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) with pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). METHODS: A literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies comparing PJ with PG after PD was conducted. The primary outcome for meta-analysis was pancreatic fistula. Secondary outcomes were morbidity, mortality, biliary fistula, intra-abdominal fluid collection, hospital length of stay (LoS), postoperative haemorrhage and reoperation. Outcome measures were odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Seven recent RCTs encompassing 1121 patients (559 PJ and 562 PG cases) were involved in this meta-analysis. Incidences of pancreatic fistula (10.6% versus 18.5%; OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.74; P = 0.0002), biliary fistula (2.3% versus 5.7%; OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.03-3.15; P = 0.03) and intra-abdominal fluid collection (8.0% versus 14.7%; OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.74; P = 0.0005) were significantly lower in the PG than the PJ group, as was hospital LoS (weighted mean difference: -1.85, 95% CI -3.23 to -0.47; P = 0.008). Subgroup analysis indicated that severe pancreatic fistula (grades B or C) occurred less frequently in the PG than the PJ group (8.3% versus 20.5%; OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59; P < 0.00001). However, there was no significant difference in morbidity (48.9% versus 51.0%; OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70-1.16; P = 0.41), mortality (3.2% versus 3.5%; OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43-1.58; P = 0.56), delayed gastric emptying (16.6% versus 14.7%; relative risk: 1.02, 95% CI 0.62-1.68; P = 0.94), postoperative haemorrhage (9.6% versus 11.1%; OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.54-1.24; P = 0.35) or reoperation (9.9% versus 9.8%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.60-1.43; P = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Pancreaticogastrostomy provides benefits over PJ after PD, including in the incidences of pancreatic fistula, biliary fistula and intra-abdominal fluid collection and in hospital LoS. Therefore, PG is recommended as a safer and more reasonable alternative to PJ reconstruction after PD.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) with pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). METHODS: A literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies comparing PJ with PG after PD was conducted. The primary outcome for meta-analysis was pancreatic fistula. Secondary outcomes were morbidity, mortality, biliary fistula, intra-abdominal fluid collection, hospital length of stay (LoS), postoperative haemorrhage and reoperation. Outcome measures were odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Seven recent RCTs encompassing 1121 patients (559 PJ and 562 PG cases) were involved in this meta-analysis. Incidences of pancreatic fistula (10.6% versus 18.5%; OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.74; P = 0.0002), biliary fistula (2.3% versus 5.7%; OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.03-3.15; P = 0.03) and intra-abdominal fluid collection (8.0% versus 14.7%; OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.74; P = 0.0005) were significantly lower in the PG than the PJ group, as was hospital LoS (weighted mean difference: -1.85, 95% CI -3.23 to -0.47; P = 0.008). Subgroup analysis indicated that severe pancreatic fistula (grades B or C) occurred less frequently in the PG than the PJ group (8.3% versus 20.5%; OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59; P < 0.00001). However, there was no significant difference in morbidity (48.9% versus 51.0%; OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70-1.16; P = 0.41), mortality (3.2% versus 3.5%; OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43-1.58; P = 0.56), delayed gastric emptying (16.6% versus 14.7%; relative risk: 1.02, 95% CI 0.62-1.68; P = 0.94), postoperative haemorrhage (9.6% versus 11.1%; OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.54-1.24; P = 0.35) or reoperation (9.9% versus 9.8%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.60-1.43; P = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Pancreaticogastrostomy provides benefits over PJ after PD, including in the incidences of pancreatic fistula, biliary fistula and intra-abdominal fluid collection and in hospital LoS. Therefore, PG is recommended as a safer and more reasonable alternative to PJ reconstruction after PD.
Authors: Benjamin C Miller; John D Christein; Stephen W Behrman; Mark P Callery; Jeffrey A Drebin; Tara S Kent; Wande B Pratt; Russell S Lewis; Charles M Vollmer Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-07-22 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: C J Yeo; J L Cameron; M M Maher; P K Sauter; M L Zahurak; M A Talamini; K D Lillemoe; H A Pitt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1995-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Matthew T McMillan; Giuseppe Malleo; Claudio Bassi; Michael H Sprys; Charles M Vollmer Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Gregory T Kennedy; Matthew T McMillan; Michael H Sprys; Claudio Bassi; Paul D Greig; Paul D Hansen; Dhiresh R Jeyarajah; Tara S Kent; Giuseppe Malleo; Giovanni Marchegiani; Rebecca M Minter; Charles M Vollmer Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: F Jasmijn Smits; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Marc G H Besselink; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; I Quintus Molenaar Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 3.647