Pedicled ligament flaps during pancreatoduodenectomy are associated with reduced hemorrhage from hepatic artery and gastroduodenal artery stump during pancreatoduodenectomy: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate whether pedicled ligament flaps (PLF) covering around the hepatic and gastroduodenal artery stump can provide better clinical outcomes in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of databases (inception to January 2023) to identify studies comparing PD with or without PLF covering the skeletonized arteries. The perioperative and postoperative outcomes were compared. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effects models. RESULTS: Ten studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Six studies with 3538 patients met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Patients in the PLF group had a significantly lower rate of PPH from the hepatic artery or gastroduodenal artery stump (H/G PPH) (OR: 0.41; 95 % CI, 0.22-0.75; P < 0.01) and overall PPH (OR: 0.65; 95 % CI, 0.46-0.93; P = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of morbidity, grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (B/C POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), reoperation, or mortality. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic pedicled ligament flaps covering around the skeletonized arteries significantly reduced overall PPH and H/G PPH, and it seemed to have no obvious influence on other complications.

Splenic vessels preserving versus Warshaw technique in spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is widely used to remove benign or low-grade malignant neoplasms located in the pancreatic body and tail. Both splenic vessels preserving (SVP-DP) and splenic vessels ligating (Warshaw technique [WT]) distal pancreatectomy are safe and effective methods but which technique is superior remains controversial. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent both methods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Major databases, including PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and The Cochrane Library, were searched for studies comparing SVP-DP and the WT for spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy up to December 2021. The perioperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the SVP-DP and WT groups. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. RESULTS: Twenty retrospective studies with 2173 patients were analyzed. A total of 1467 (67.5%) patients underwent SVP-DP, while 706 (32.5%) patients underwent WT. Patients in the SVP-DP group had a significantly lower rate of splenic infarction (OR: 0.17; 95% CI, 0.11-0.25; P < 0.00001) and incidence of gastric varices (OR: 0.19; 95% CI, 0.11-0.32; P < 0.00001) compared to the patients in the WT group; furthermore, they had a shorter length of hospital stay (WMD: 0.71; 95% CI, -1.13 to -0.29; P = 0.0008). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of major complication, postoperative pancreatic fistula (B/C), reoperation, blood loss, or operation time. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to WT, SVP-DP should be preferred to reduce splenic infarction and gastric varices, and WT may be more suitable for large tumors. Moreover, considering the shortcomings of retrospective study, a multicenter randomized controlled study with a large sample size should be conducted to verify our results.