Home > Journals > Minerva Surgery > Past Issues > Minerva Surgery 2022 February;77(1) > Minerva Surgery 2022 February;77(1):65-71

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

Publishing options
eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

REVIEW   

Minerva Surgery 2022 February;77(1):65-71

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5691.21.08802-X

Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

The optimal choice for pancreatic anastomosis after pancreaticoduodenectomy

Yujie LI 1, 2, 3, Rong HUA 4

1 Department of General Surgery, HwaMei Hospital, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Ningbo, China; 2 Ningbo Institute of Life and Health Industry, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Ningbo, China; 3 Key Laboratory of Diagnosis and Treatment of Digestive System Tumors, Ningbo, China; 4 School of Medicine, Department of Pancreaticobiliary Surgery, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China



INTRODUCTION: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains a major cause of morbidity following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). This network meta-analysis (NMA) compared techniques of pancreatic anastomosis following PD to determine the technique with the best outcome profile.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search was performed on the Scopus, EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane databases to identify RCTs employing the international study group of pancreatic fistulas (ISGPF) definition of POPF. The main outcomes were POPF and clinically relevant POPF.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Three techniques of pancreatic anastomosis following PD were directly compared in 16 RCTs comprising 2365 patients. Overall, 929 patients underwent duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ DTM), 760 patients’ invagination pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ Inv), and 676 patients underwent pancreatogastrostomy (PG). The results of comparisons of POPF, clinically relevant POPF, biliary leakage, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), in hospital mortality, internal hemorrhage, reoperation in our network meta-analysis suggested there were no significant differences among the 3 procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: There are no significant differences among PJ DTM, PJ Inv and PG in the prevention of POPF, clinically relevant POPF, biliary leakage, DGE, internal hemorrhage and reoperation. However, further randomized controlled trials should be undertaken to ascertain these findings.


KEY WORDS: Anastomosis, surgical; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic fistula; Network meta-analysis

top of page