[Viability of extended distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma of the body or tail].

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the viability of extended distal pancreatectomy and the associated prognostic factors. METHODS: The data of 57 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent standard distal pancreatectomy(DP) or extended distal pancreatectomy(EDP) from January 2011 to December 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty-five patients were performed with DP and 22 with EDP. Operation safety and survival benefit between DP and EDP were compared by t-test or χ(2) test.Cox regression analysis was used to explore the prognostic indicators. RESULTS: Compared to DP group, operation time((255±91)min vs.(208±80)min)(t=2.066, P=0.044) and ratio of blood transfusion (50.0% vs.17.1%)(χ(2)=12.836, P=0.008) were greater in EDP group, respectively.There were no significant differences in amount of intraoperative blood loss and postoperative duration of hospitalization. Delayed gastric emptying was greater in EDP(22.7% vs.2.9%)(Z=-2.251, P=0.027), while other complications had no differences. Mortality and ratio of relaparotomy also showed no differences. Median survival following DP was 13.1 months compared to 8.2 months following EDP. There was no difference in survival between DP and EDP. According to the results of multivariate analysis, tumor size(RR=1.275, P=0.03)and perioperative blood transfusions(RR=2.673, P=0.04) were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Though patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who undergo EDP have a worse pathologic staging, they will gain a comparable long-term survival to the patients undergo DP. Tumor size and perioperative blood transfusions are independent prognostic factors.

Meta-analysis of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Surgical reconstruction following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Because of great variability in definitions of specific complications, it remains unclear whether there is a difference in complication rates following the two commonest types of reconstruction, pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) and pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ). Published consensus definitions for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) have led to a series of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) uniquely placed to address this question. METHODS: A literature search was carried out to identify all RCTs comparing postoperative complications of PG versus PJ reconstruction following PD published between January 1995 and December 2013. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95 percent confidence intervals (c.i.) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effects models. RESULTS: In total, seven RCTs with 1121 patients were included. Four of these trials applied definitions as published by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF). Using ISGPF definitions, the incidence of POPF was lower in patients undergoing PG than in those having PJ (OR 0·50, 95 per cent c.i. 0·34 to 0·73; P < 0·001). Using definitions applied by each individual study, PG was associated with significantly lower rates of POPF (OR 0·51, 0·36 to 0·71; P < 0·001), intra-abdominal fluid collection (OR 0·50, 0·34 to 0·74; P < 0·001) and biliary fistula (OR 0·42, 0·18 to 0·93; P = 0·03) than PJ. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of four RCTs based on ISGPF criteria, and seven RCTs using non-standard criteria, revealed that PG reduced the incidence of POPF after PD compared with PJ.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after intraoperative pancreatic duct stent placement during pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy is often serious. Although some studies have suggested that stenting the anastomosis can reduce the incidence of this complication, the value of stenting in the setting of pancreaticoduodenectomy remains unclear. METHODS: Studies comparing outcomes of stent versus no stent, and internal versus external stent placement for pancreaticoduodenectomy were eligible for inclusion. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. RESULTS: From a search of the literature published between January 1973 and September 2011, five randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 11 non-randomized observational clinical studies (OCS) involving 1726 patients were selected for inclusion in this review. Meta-analysis of RCTs revealed that placing a stent in the pancreatic duct did not reduce the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula. External stents had no advantage over internal stents in terms of clinical outcome. Subgroup analyses revealed that use of an external stent significantly reduced the incidence of pancreatic fistula (RCTs: OR 0·42, 0·24 to 0·76, P = 0·004; OCS: OR 0·43, 0·27 to 0·68, P < 0·001), delayed gastric emptying (RCTs: OR 0·41, 0·19 to 0·87, P = 0·02) and postoperative morbidity (RCTs: OR 0·55, 0·34 to 0·89, P = 0·02) compared with no stent. CONCLUSION: Pancreatic duct stenting did not reduce the incidence of pancreatic fistula and other complications in pancreaticoduodenectomy compared with no stenting. Although no difference was found between external and internal stents in terms of efficacy, external stents seemed to reduce the incidence of pancreatic fistula compared with control.