Cargando…

Total pancreatectomy compared with pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: To assess whether total pancreatectomy (TP) is as feasible, safe, and efficacious as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Materials and Methods: Major databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, were searched for studies comparing TP and PD be...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yang, Du-Jiang, Xiong, Jun-Jie, Liu, Xue-Ting, Li, Jiao, Dhanushka Layanthi Siriwardena, Kanagarathna Mudiyanselage, Hu, Wei-Ming
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6511256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31123419
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S195726
_version_ 1783417552934797312
author Yang, Du-Jiang
Xiong, Jun-Jie
Liu, Xue-Ting
Li, Jiao
Dhanushka Layanthi Siriwardena, Kanagarathna Mudiyanselage
Hu, Wei-Ming
author_facet Yang, Du-Jiang
Xiong, Jun-Jie
Liu, Xue-Ting
Li, Jiao
Dhanushka Layanthi Siriwardena, Kanagarathna Mudiyanselage
Hu, Wei-Ming
author_sort Yang, Du-Jiang
collection PubMed
description Aim: To assess whether total pancreatectomy (TP) is as feasible, safe, and efficacious as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Materials and Methods: Major databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, were searched for studies comparing TP and PD between January 1943 and June 2018. The meta-analysis only included studies that were conducted after 2000. The primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality. Pooled odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences (WMDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed effects or random effects models. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Results: In total, 45 studies were included in this systematic review, and 5 non-randomized comparative studies with 786 patients (TP: 270, PD: 516) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no differences in terms of mortality (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.66–3.16; P=0.36), hospital stay (WMD: −0.60, 95% CI: −1.78–0.59; P=0.32) and rates of reoperation (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.55–2.31; P=0.75) between the two groups. In addition, morbidity was not significantly different between the two groups (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.01–1.97; P=0.05); however, the results showed that the TP group tended to have more complications than the PD group. Furthermore, the operation time (WMD: 29.56, 95% CI: 8.23–50.89; P=0.007) was longer in the TP group. Blood loss (WMD: 339.96, 95% CI: 117.74–562.18; P=0.003) and blood transfusion (OR: 4.86, 95% CI: 1.93–12.29; P=0.0008) were more common in the TP group than in the PD group. There were no differences in the long-term survival rates between the two groups. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that TP may not be as feasible and safe as PD. However, TP and PD may have the same efficacy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6511256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65112562019-05-23 Total pancreatectomy compared with pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Yang, Du-Jiang Xiong, Jun-Jie Liu, Xue-Ting Li, Jiao Dhanushka Layanthi Siriwardena, Kanagarathna Mudiyanselage Hu, Wei-Ming Cancer Manag Res Review Aim: To assess whether total pancreatectomy (TP) is as feasible, safe, and efficacious as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Materials and Methods: Major databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, were searched for studies comparing TP and PD between January 1943 and June 2018. The meta-analysis only included studies that were conducted after 2000. The primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality. Pooled odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences (WMDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed effects or random effects models. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Results: In total, 45 studies were included in this systematic review, and 5 non-randomized comparative studies with 786 patients (TP: 270, PD: 516) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no differences in terms of mortality (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.66–3.16; P=0.36), hospital stay (WMD: −0.60, 95% CI: −1.78–0.59; P=0.32) and rates of reoperation (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.55–2.31; P=0.75) between the two groups. In addition, morbidity was not significantly different between the two groups (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.01–1.97; P=0.05); however, the results showed that the TP group tended to have more complications than the PD group. Furthermore, the operation time (WMD: 29.56, 95% CI: 8.23–50.89; P=0.007) was longer in the TP group. Blood loss (WMD: 339.96, 95% CI: 117.74–562.18; P=0.003) and blood transfusion (OR: 4.86, 95% CI: 1.93–12.29; P=0.0008) were more common in the TP group than in the PD group. There were no differences in the long-term survival rates between the two groups. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that TP may not be as feasible and safe as PD. However, TP and PD may have the same efficacy. Dove 2019-05-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6511256/ /pubmed/31123419 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S195726 Text en © 2019 Yang et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Review
Yang, Du-Jiang
Xiong, Jun-Jie
Liu, Xue-Ting
Li, Jiao
Dhanushka Layanthi Siriwardena, Kanagarathna Mudiyanselage
Hu, Wei-Ming
Total pancreatectomy compared with pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Total pancreatectomy compared with pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Total pancreatectomy compared with pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Total pancreatectomy compared with pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Total pancreatectomy compared with pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Total pancreatectomy compared with pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort total pancreatectomy compared with pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6511256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31123419
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S195726
work_keys_str_mv AT yangdujiang totalpancreatectomycomparedwithpancreaticoduodenectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT xiongjunjie totalpancreatectomycomparedwithpancreaticoduodenectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liuxueting totalpancreatectomycomparedwithpancreaticoduodenectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lijiao totalpancreatectomycomparedwithpancreaticoduodenectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dhanushkalayanthisiriwardenakanagarathnamudiyanselage totalpancreatectomycomparedwithpancreaticoduodenectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT huweiming totalpancreatectomycomparedwithpancreaticoduodenectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis