F J Hüttner1,2, J Koessler-Ebs1,2, T Hackert1, A Ulrich1, M W Büchler1, M K Diener1,2. 1. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Study Centre of the German Surgical Society, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic enucleation is a tissue-sparing approach to pancreatic neoplasms and may result in better postoperative pancreatic function than standard pancreatic resection. The objective of this review was to compare the postoperative outcome after pancreatic enucleation versus standard resection. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically until February 2015 to identify studies comparing the outcome of enucleation versus standard resection for pancreatic neoplasms. After critical appraisal, meta-analysis was performed and the findings were presented as odds ratios or weighted mean differences with corresponding 95 per cent c.i. RESULTS: Twenty-two observational studies (1148 patients) were included. Duration of surgery (P < 0.001), blood loss (P < 0.001), length of hospital stay (P = 0.04), and postoperative endocrine (P < 0.001) and exocrine (P = 0.01) insufficiency were lower after enucleation than after standard resection. Mortality (P = 0.44), overall complications (P = 0.74), reoperation rate (P = 0.93) and delayed gastric emptying (P = 0.15) were not significantly different between the two approaches. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was higher after enucleation than after standard resection (P < 0.001). However, the raised POPF rate did not result in higher mortality or overall morbidity. Sensitivity analysis of high-volume studies (total of more than 20 enucleations and more than 4 per year) showed that, in specialized centres, enucleation can be performed with no increased risk of POPF (P = 0.12). CONCLUSION: Compared with standard resection, pancreatic enucleation can be performed effectively and with comparable safety in high-volume institutions. Enucleation should be considered instead of standard resection for selected pancreatic neoplasms.
BACKGROUND:Pancreatic enucleation is a tissue-sparing approach to pancreatic neoplasms and may result in better postoperative pancreatic function than standard pancreatic resection. The objective of this review was to compare the postoperative outcome after pancreatic enucleation versus standard resection. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically until February 2015 to identify studies comparing the outcome of enucleation versus standard resection for pancreatic neoplasms. After critical appraisal, meta-analysis was performed and the findings were presented as odds ratios or weighted mean differences with corresponding 95 per cent c.i. RESULTS: Twenty-two observational studies (1148 patients) were included. Duration of surgery (P < 0.001), blood loss (P < 0.001), length of hospital stay (P = 0.04), and postoperative endocrine (P < 0.001) and exocrine (P = 0.01) insufficiency were lower after enucleation than after standard resection. Mortality (P = 0.44), overall complications (P = 0.74), reoperation rate (P = 0.93) and delayed gastric emptying (P = 0.15) were not significantly different between the two approaches. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was higher after enucleation than after standard resection (P < 0.001). However, the raised POPF rate did not result in higher mortality or overall morbidity. Sensitivity analysis of high-volume studies (total of more than 20 enucleations and more than 4 per year) showed that, in specialized centres, enucleation can be performed with no increased risk of POPF (P = 0.12). CONCLUSION: Compared with standard resection, pancreatic enucleation can be performed effectively and with comparable safety in high-volume institutions. Enucleation should be considered instead of standard resection for selected pancreatic neoplasms.
Authors: James R Howe; Nipun B Merchant; Claudius Conrad; Xavier M Keutgen; Julie Hallet; Jeffrey A Drebin; Rebecca M Minter; Terry C Lairmore; Jennifer F Tseng; Herbert J Zeh; Steven K Libutti; Gagandeep Singh; Jeffrey E Lee; Thomas A Hope; Michelle K Kim; Yusuf Menda; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Jennifer A Chan; Rodney F Pommier Journal: Pancreas Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Käthe Goossen; Solveig Tenckhoff; Pascal Probst; Kathrin Grummich; André L Mihaljevic; Markus W Büchler; Markus K Diener Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 3.445