| Literature DB >> 34926236 |
Lu Zhou1,2, Wei-Ming Xiao1,3, Cheng-Peng Li4, Yi-Wen Gao1,5, Wei-Juan Gong1,5, Guo-Tao Lu1,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Soft pancreas is widely recognized as an important risk factor for the development of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Although fatty pancreas (FP) has not been formally defined as a cause of pancreatic fistula, existing research has shown that it can increase the incidence of POPF by increasing pancreatic tenderness; therefore, it may be a potential risk factor. This study aimed to discern whether FP was associated with POPF.Entities:
Keywords: BMI - Body Mass Index; fatty pancreas; pancrea; pancreatic cancer; pancreatic fistula (PF)
Year: 2021 PMID: 34926236 PMCID: PMC8671996 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.622282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Flowchart of the study selection process.
Characteristics of included studies.
| Study | Year | Country | Method of FP determination | Total number of individual | Mean age, years | Men, n% | Mean BMI, kg/m2 | NOS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tanaka et al. ( | 2020 | Japan | pathology | 150 | 66 | 97,65% | 22 | 6 |
| Harrell et al. ( | 2020 | America | pathology | 301 | 63.2 | 150,49.8% | 26.5 | 7 |
| Xingjun et al. ( | 2019 | China | pathology | 609 | NP | 383,62.9% | NP | 7 |
| Patel and Yagnik ( | 2019 | India | pathology | 46 | NP | 30,65% | NP | 6 |
| Halle-Smith et al. ( | 2017 | UK | pathology | 107 | 67.5 | 59,55% | 25.5 | 7 |
| Yoon et al. ( | 2016 | Korea | pathology | 165 | 62.2 | 73,44% | NP | 7 |
| Tranchart et al. ( | 2012 | France | pathology | 103 | 58 | 58,56.3% | 24 | 6 |
| Belyaev et al. ( | 2011 | Germany | pathology | 696 | 62 | 383,55% | NP | 6 |
| Lee et al. ( | 2010 | Korea | pathology | 96 | 63.6 | NP | NP | 7 |
| Rosso et al. ( | 2009 | France | pathology | 111 | 65 | 65,58.6% | NP | 6 |
| Gaujoux et al. ( | 2010 | France | pathology | 100 | 58 | 62,62% | 24 | 7 |
BMI, body mass index; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; NP,not reported.
Figure 2Forest plots of POPF’s prevalence rate.
Figure 3Forest plots of BMI on POFP.
Figure 4Forest plots of the effect of FP on POPF.
Figure 5Sensitivity analysis of the association Association Between FP and POPF.
Subgroup analysis for the association association between FP and POPF.
| Subgroups | No. of studies | Patients(n) | OR | 95%CI | P value | I²(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4 ( | 403 | 1.72 | 1.06,2.78 | 0.03 | 51 |
|
| 8 ( | 1527 | ||||
| A | 5 ( | 506 | 3.11 | 1.54,6.27 | 0.049 | 58 |
| B | 3 ( | 1021 | 6.61 | 0.51,86.4 | <0.0001 | 91.2 |
|
| 8 ( | 1527 | ||||
| Asian | 3 ( | 805 | 6.85 | 2.09,22.42 | 0.021 | 74 |
| North America and Europe | 5 ( | 722 | 2.49 | 0.89,6.93 | 0.003 | 74.9 |
A: These studies have a common pattern of diagnosis. The total score of pancreatic fatty infiltration was obtained by the addition of both perilobular and intralobular scores. Perilobular and intralobular fatty infiltration were scored as follows: 0: no fatty infiltration; 1: some adipocytes; and 2: numerous adipocytes. A total score of 0-2 was considered as a fat-free type, whereas a total score of 3-4 was regarded as a fatty infiltration type. B: Each study has different way of diagnosis.