Literature DB >> 27102322

Pancreaticojejunostomy is comparable to pancreaticogastrostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Stefano Crippa1, Roberto Cirocchi2, Justus Randolph3, Stefano Partelli1, Giulio Belfiori4, Alessandra Piccioli4, Amilcare Parisi5, Massimo Falconi6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To perform an up-to-date meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) and pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) in order to determine the safer anastomotic technique. Compared to existing meta-analysis, new RCTs were evaluated and subgroup analyses of different anastomotic techniques were carried out.
METHODS: We conducted a bibliographic research using the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database from January 1990 to July 2015 of RCTs. Only RCTs, in English, that compared PG versus all types of PJ were selected. Data were independently extracted by two authors. We performed a quantitative systematic review following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. A random-effect model was applied. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I (2) and χ (2) tests. Primary outcomes were rate of overall and clinically significant pancreatic fistula (POPF).
RESULTS: Ten RCTs were identified including 1629 patients, 826 undergoing PG and 803 undergoing PJ. RCTs showed significant heterogeneity regarding definitions of POPF, perioperative management, and characteristics of pancreatic gland. No significant differences were found in the rate of overall and clinically significant POPF, morbidity, mortality, reoperation, and intra-abdominal sepsis when PG was compared with all types PJ or when subgroup analysis (double-layer PG with or without anterior gastrotomy versus duct to mucosa PJ and single-layer PG versus single-layer end-to-end/end-to-side PJ) were analyzed.
CONCLUSIONS: PG is not superior to PJ in the prevention of POPF. Current RCTs have major methodological limitations with significant heterogeneity in regard to surgical techniques, definition of POPF/complications, and perioperative management.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Meta-analysis; Pancreatic fistula; Pancreaticogastrostomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Randomized trial

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27102322     DOI: 10.1007/s00423-016-1418-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg        ISSN: 1435-2443            Impact factor:   3.445


  37 in total

1.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Reconstruction by pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy following pancreatectomy: results of a comparative study.

Authors:  Claudio Bassi; Massimo Falconi; Enrico Molinari; Roberto Salvia; Giovanni Butturini; Nora Sartori; William Mantovani; Paolo Pederzoli
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Meta-analysis in epidemiology, with special reference to studies of the association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer: a critique.

Authors:  J L Fleiss; A J Gross
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  Pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy.

Authors:  Shijie Ma; Qianjun Li; Weijie Dai; Feng Pan
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 2.192

5.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials.

Authors:  R DerSimonian; N Laird
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1986-09

6.  A controlled randomized multicenter trial of pancreatogastrostomy or pancreatojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Jean-Pierre Duffas; Bertrand Suc; Simon Msika; Gilles Fourtanier; Fabrice Muscari; Jean Marie Hay; Abe Fingerhut; Bertrand Millat; Alexandre Radovanowic; Pierre-Louis Fagniez
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.565

7.  Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Jonathan A C Sterne; Alex J Sutton; John P A Ioannidis; Norma Terrin; David R Jones; Joseph Lau; James Carpenter; Gerta Rücker; Roger M Harbord; Christopher H Schmid; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Jonathan J Deeks; Jaime Peters; Petra Macaskill; Guido Schwarzer; Sue Duval; Douglas G Altman; David Moher; Julian P T Higgins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-07-22

8.  Fixed vs random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies: the rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death.

Authors:  Jonathan J Shuster; Lynn S Jones; Daniel A Salmon
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Temporary fibrin glue occlusion of the main pancreatic duct in the prevention of intra-abdominal complications after pancreatic resection: prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Bertrand Suc; Simon Msika; Abe Fingerhut; Gilles Fourtanier; Jean-Marie Hay; Franck Holmières; Bernard Sastre; Pierre-Louis Fagniez
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 10.  Somatostatin analogues for pancreatic surgery.

Authors:  Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy; Rahul Koti; Giuseppe Fusai; Brian R Davidson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-04-30
View more
  21 in total

1.  A New Feasible Technique for Polytetrafluoroethylene Suture Buttress-Reinforced Pancreaticojejunostomy (PBRP): Mechanical Analysis and a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Xinxin Shao; Yibin Xie; Quan Xu; Anqiang Sun; Zhenze Wang; Yantao Tian
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Outcome of 150 Consecutive Blumgart's Pancreaticojejunostomy After Pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Mallika Tewari; R Mahendran; T Kiran; A Verma; V K Dixit; S Shukla; H S Shukla
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-10-27

3.  Pancreatitis After Pancreatoduodenectomy Predicts Clinically Relevant Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula.

Authors:  C M Kühlbrey; N Samiei; O Sick; F Makowiec; U T Hopt; U A Wittel
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 4.  Different types of pancreatico-enteric anastomosis.

Authors:  Savio George Barreto; Parul J Shukla
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2017-11-14

Review 5.  [Pancreaticogastrostomy: when and how?]

Authors:  D Tittelbach-Helmrich; T Keck; U F Wellner
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 0.955

6.  In Patients with a Soft Pancreas, a Thick Parenchyma, a Small Duct, and Fatty Infiltration Are Significant Risks for Pancreatic Fistula After Pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Motokazu Sugimoto; Shinichiro Takahashi; Motohiro Kojima; Tatsushi Kobayashi; Naoto Gotohda; Masaru Konishi
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency after pancreaticoduodenectomy is more prevalent with pancreaticogastrostomy than with pancreaticojejunostomy. A retrospective multicentre observational cohort study.

Authors:  Geert Roeyen; Miet Jansen; Laure Ruyssinck; Thiery Chapelle; Aude Vanlander; Bart Bracke; Vera Hartman; Dirk Ysebaert; Frederik Berrevoet
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 3.647

8.  Modified end-to-side double-layer open pancreaticogastrostomy after Whipple procedure: surgical tips for a safe anastomosis.

Authors:  Raffaele Dalla Valle; Matteo Rossini; Laura Lamecchi; Maurizio Iaria
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2018-01-31

Review 9.  Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Yao Cheng; Marta Briarava; Mingliang Lai; Xiaomei Wang; Bing Tu; Nansheng Cheng; Jianping Gong; Yuhong Yuan; Pierluigi Pilati; Simone Mocellin
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-09-12

10.  Rate of Post-Operative Pancreatic Fistula after Robotic-Assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy with Pancreato-Jejunostomy versus Pancreato-Gastrostomy: A Retrospective Case Matched Comparative Study.

Authors:  Marco V Marino; Adrian Kah Heng Chiow; Antonello Mirabella; Gianpaolo Vaccarella; Andrzej L Komorowski
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 4.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.