Ragini Kilambi1, Anand Narayan Singh2. 1. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India. 2. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Liver Transplantation, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ is the most widely used reconstruction technique after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Despite several randomized trials, the ideal technique of pancreaticojejunostomy remains debatable. We planned a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the two most common techniques of PJ (duct-to-mucosa and dunking) to identify the best available evidence in the current literature. METHODS: We searched the Pubmed/Medline, Web of science, Science citation index, Google scholar and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases till October 2017 for all English language randomized trials comparing the two approaches. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan), Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014 and results were expressed as odds ratio for dichotomous and mean difference for continuous variables. P-value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. Trial sequential analysis was performed using TSA version 0.9.5.5 (Copenhagen: The Copenhagen Trial Unit, Center for Clinical Intervention Research, 2016). RESULTS: A total of 8 trials were included, with a total of 1043 patients (DTM: 518; Dunking: 525). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of overall as well as clinically relevant POPF rate. Similarly, both groups were comparable for the secondary outcomes. Trial sequential analysis revealed that the required information size had been crossed without achieving a clinically significant difference for overall POPF; and though the required information size had not been achieved for CR-POPF, the current data has already crossed the futility line for CR-POPF with a 10% risk difference, 80% power and 5% α error. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis found no significant difference between the two techniques in terms of overall and CR-POPF rates. Further, the existing evidence is sufficient to conclude lack of difference and further trials are unlikely to result in any change in the outcome. (CRD42017074886).
BACKGROUND: Pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ is the most widely used reconstruction technique after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Despite several randomized trials, the ideal technique of pancreaticojejunostomy remains debatable. We planned a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the two most common techniques of PJ (duct-to-mucosa and dunking) to identify the best available evidence in the current literature. METHODS: We searched the Pubmed/Medline, Web of science, Science citation index, Google scholar and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases till October 2017 for all English language randomized trials comparing the two approaches. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan), Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014 and results were expressed as odds ratio for dichotomous and mean difference for continuous variables. P-value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. Trial sequential analysis was performed using TSA version 0.9.5.5 (Copenhagen: The Copenhagen Trial Unit, Center for Clinical Intervention Research, 2016). RESULTS: A total of 8 trials were included, with a total of 1043 patients (DTM: 518; Dunking: 525). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of overall as well as clinically relevant POPF rate. Similarly, both groups were comparable for the secondary outcomes. Trial sequential analysis revealed that the required information size had been crossed without achieving a clinically significant difference for overall POPF; and though the required information size had not been achieved for CR-POPF, the current data has already crossed the futility line for CR-POPF with a 10% risk difference, 80% power and 5% α error. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis found no significant difference between the two techniques in terms of overall and CR-POPF rates. Further, the existing evidence is sufficient to conclude lack of difference and further trials are unlikely to result in any change in the outcome. (CRD42017074886).