Prevention of postoperative complications following pancreatic surgery

The Learning Curve for Pancreaticoduodenectomy: The Experience of a Single Surgeon

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex and high-skill demanding procedure often associated with significant morbidity and mortality. However, the results have improved over the past two decades. However, there is a paucity of research concerning the learning curve for PD. Our aim was to report the outcomes of 100 consecutive PDs representing a single surgeon's learning curve and to depict the factors that influenced the learning process.

METHODS

We reviewed the first 121 PDs performed at our academic center (2013-2019) by a single surgeon; 110 were PDs (5 laparoscopic and 105 open) and 11 were total PDs (1 laparoscopic and 10 open). Subsequent statistics was performed on the first 100 PDs, with attention paid to the learning curve and survival rate at 5 years. The data were analyzed comparing the first 50 cases (Group 1) to the last 50 cases (Group 2).

RESULTS

The most frequent histopathological tumor type was pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (50%). A total of 39% of patients had preoperative biliary drainage and 45% presented with positive biliary cultures. The preferred reconstruction technique included pancreaticogastrostomy (99%), in situ hepaticojejunostomy (70%), and precolic gastro-jejunal anastomosis (88%). Postoperative complications included biliary fistula (1%), pancreatic fistula (8%), pancreatic stump bleeding (4%), and delayed gastric emptying (13%). The mean operative time decreased after the first 50 cases (p < 0.001) and blood loss after 60 cases (p = 0.046). R1 resections lowered after 25 cases (p = 0.025). Vascular resections (17%) did not influence the rate of complications (p = 0.8). The survival rate at 5 years for pancreatic adenocarcinoma was 32.93%.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes improve as surgeon experience increases, with proper training being the most important factor for minimizing the impact of the learning curve over the postoperative complications. Analyzing the learning curve from the perspective of a single surgeon is mandatory for accurate statistical results and interpretation.

Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, postoperative mortality, complications, and quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011, 9 January 2014, and 18 August 2015 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases on 18 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE (1946 to August 2015); and EMBASE (1980 to August 2015). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010); we did not update this part of the search for the 2014 and 2015 updates because the prior searches did not contribute any additional information. We identified two additional trials through the updated search in 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing CW versus PPW including participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs), and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included trials according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs with a total of 512 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. Postoperative mortality (OR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.54; P = 0.32), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P = 0.29), and morbidity showed no significant differences, except of delayed gastric emptying, which significantly favoured CW (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.05 to 8.70; P = 0.04). Furthermore, we noted that operating time (MD -45.22 minutes, 95% CI -74.67 to -15.78; P = 0.003), intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.32 L, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.03; P = 0.03), and red blood cell transfusion (MD -0.47 units, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.07; P = 0.02) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results were associated with low-quality evidence based on GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests no relevant differences in mortality, morbidity, and survival between the two operations. However, some perioperative outcome measures significantly favour the PPW procedure. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future high-quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions based on well-defined outcome parameters are required.

Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma

Background Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, mortality, complications and quality of life.Objectives The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.Search methods We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011 and 9 January 2014 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs),while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects(DARE) from The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1946 to January 2014); and EMBASE (1980 to January 2014). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010). We identified no additional studies upon updating the systematic review in 2014.Selection criteria We considered RCTs comparing CW versus PPW to be eligible if they included study participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.Main results We included six RCTs with a total of 465 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. In-hospital mortality (OR 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.40; P value 0.18), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P value 0.29) and morbidity showed no significant differences. However, we noted that operating time (MD -68.26 minutes, 95% CI -105.70 to -30.83; P value 0.0004) and intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.76 mL, 95%CI -0.96 to -0.56; P value < 0.00001) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results are associated with low quality of evidence as determined on the basis of GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.Authors' conclusions No evidence suggests relevant differences in mortality, morbidity and survival between the two operations. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future research must be undertaken to perform high-quality randomised controlled trials of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well-defined outcome parameters.

Somatostatin analogues for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic resections are associated with high morbidity (30% to 60%) and mortality (5%). Synthetic analogues of somatostatin are advocated by some surgeons to reduce complications following pancreatic surgery; however, their use is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether prophylactic somatostatin analogues should be used routinely in pancreatic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded to February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic somatostatin or one of its analogues versus no drug or placebo during pancreatic surgery (irrespective of language or publication status).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We analysed data with both the fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager (RevMan). We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an intention-to-treat or available case analysis. When it was not possible to perform either of the above, we performed a per protocol analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 21 trials (19 trials of high risk of bias) involving 2348 people. There was no significant difference in the perioperative mortality (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.16; n = 2210) or the number of people with drug-related adverse effects between the two groups (RR 2.09; 95% CI 0.83 to 5.24; n = 1199). Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. The overall number of participants with postoperative complications was significantly lower in the somatostatin analogue group (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; n = 1903) but there was no significant difference in the re-operation rate (RR 1.26; 95% CI 0.58 to 2.70; n = 687) or hospital stay (MD -1.29 days; 95% CI -2.60 to 0.03; n = 1314) between the groups. The incidence of pancreatic fistula was lower in the somatostatin analogue group (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.79; n = 2206). The proportion of these fistulas that were clinically significant was not mentioned in most trials. On inclusion of trials that clearly distinguished clinically significant fistulas, there was no significant difference between the two groups (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.28; n = 292).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Somatostatin analogues may reduce perioperative complications but do not reduce perioperative mortality. Further adequately powered trials with low risk of bias are necessary. Based on the current available evidence, somatostatin and its analogues are recommended for routine use in people undergoing pancreatic resection.

Somatostatin analogues for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic resections are associated with high morbidity (30% to 60%) and mortality (5%). Synthetic analogues of somatostatin are advocated by some surgeons to reduce complications following pancreatic surgery, however their use is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether prophylactic somatostatin analogues should be used routinely in pancreatic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded to December 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic somatostatin or one of its analogues versus no drug or placebo during pancreatic surgery (irrespective of language or publication status).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We analysed data with both the fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager (RevMan). We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an intention-to-treat or available case analysis. When it was not possible to perform either of the above, we performed per protocol analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 trials (17 trials of high risk of bias) involving 2245 patients. There was no significant difference in the perioperative mortality (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.16; N = 2210) or the number of patients with drug-related adverse effects between the two groups (RR 2.09; 95% CI 0.83 to 5.24; N = 1199). Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. The overall number of patients with postoperative complications was significantly lower in the somatostatin analogue group (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; N = 1858) but there was no significant difference in the re-operation rate (RR 1.26; 95% CI 0.58 to 2.70; N = 687) or hospital stay (MD -1.04 days; 95% CI -2.54 to 0.46; N = 1269) between the groups. The incidence of pancreatic fistula was lower in the somatostatin analogue group (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.77; N = 2161). The proportion of these fistulas that were clinically significant was not mentioned in most trials. On inclusion of trials that clearly distinguished clinically significant fistulas, there was no significant difference between the two groups (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.41; N = 247).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Somatostatin analogues may reduce perioperative complications but do not reduce perioperative mortality. Further adequately powered trials with low risk of bias are necessary. Based on the current available evidence, somatostatin and its analogues are recommended for routine use in patients undergoing pancreatic resection.

Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours is either a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of the procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, mortality, complications and quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of each operation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We conducted searches on 28 March 2006 and 11 January 2011 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CDSR and DARE from The Cochrane Library (2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2011), and EMBASE (1980 to January 2011). Abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and U nited European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010). No additional studies were indentified upon updating the systematic review in 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs comparing the CW with PPW to be eligible if they included patients with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (OR), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MD) and used hazard ratios (HR) for meta-analysis of survival. Two authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies according to Cochrane standards.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six randomised controlled trials with a total of 465 patients. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. In-hospital mortality (OR 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.40; P = 0.18), overall survival (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P = 0.29) and morbidity showed no significant differences. However, we noted that operating time (MD -68.26 minutes; 95% CI -105.70 to -30.83; P = 0.0004) and intra-operative blood loss (MD -0.76 millilitres; 95% CI -0.96 to -0.56; P < 0.00001) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results have low quality of evidence based on GRADE criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of relevant differences in mortality, morbidity and survival between the two operations. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future research must be undertaken to perform high-quality randomised controlled trials of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well-defined outcome parameters.

WITHDRAWN: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) versus pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours is either a classic Whipple operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. It is unclear which of the procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, mortality, complications and quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

Several publications have highlighted advantages and disadvantages of the two techniques and the current basis of evidence remains unclear. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of each operation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We conducted a search on 28/03/2006 to identify all RCTs, applying no language restriction.We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, CDSR and DARE from The Cochrane Library (2006, issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to 2006) and EMBASE (1980 to 2006). We handsearched abstracts from 1995 to 2006 from the American Digestive Disease Week (DDW), published in Gastroenterology, and the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW), published in Gut.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials comparing the classic Whipple operation with pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy to be eligible if they included patients with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (OR), pooled continuous outcomes using weighted mean differences (WMD), and used hazard ratios (HR) for meta-analysis of survival. Two authors independently evaluated the methodological quality of included studies according to quality standards and by using a questionnaire.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 1235 abstracts and checked these for eligibility, including seven randomised controlled trials. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. Our comparisons of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.40; P = 0.18), overall survival (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P = 0.29) and morbidity showed no significant differences. However, we noted that operating time (WMD -68.26 minutes; 95% CI -105.70 to -30.83; P = 0.0004) and intra-operative blood loss (WMD -0.76 millilitres; 95% CI -0.96 to -0.56; P < 0.00001) were significantly reduced in the pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of relevant differences in mortality, morbidity and survival between the two operations. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future research must be undertaken to perform high-quality randomised controlled trials of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well-defined outcome parameters.

Somatostatin analogues for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic resections are associated with high morbidity (30% to 60%) and mortality (5%). Synthetic analogues of somatostatin are advocated by some surgeons to reduce complications following pancreatic surgery, however their use is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether prophylactic somatostatin analogues should be used routinely in pancreatic surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded to November 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic somatostatin or one of its analogues versus no drug or placebo during pancreatic surgery (irrespective of language or publication status).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We analysed data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using Review Manager (RevMan). We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an intention-to-treat or available case analysis. When it was not possible to perform either of the above, we performed per protocol analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 17 trials (of high risk of bias) involving 2143 patients. The overall number of patients with postoperative complications was lower in the somatostatin analogue group (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.82) but there was no difference in the perioperative mortality, re-operation rate or hospital stay between the groups. The incidence of pancreatic fistula was lower in the somatostatin analogue group (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.78). The proportion of these fistulas that were clinically significant was not mentioned in most trials. On inclusion of trials that clearly distinguished clinically significant fistulas, there was no difference between the two groups (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.41). Subgroup analysis revealed a shorter hospital stay in the somatostatin analogue group than the controls for patients with malignant aetiology (MD -7.57; 95% CI -11.29 to -3.84).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Somatostatin analogues reduce perioperative complications but do not reduce perioperative mortality. In those undergoing pancreatic surgery for malignancy, they shorten hospital stay. Further adequately powered trials with low risk of bias are necessary. Based on the current available evidence, somatostatin and its analogues are recommended for routine use in patients undergoing pancreatic resection for malignancy. There is currently no evidence to support their routine use in pancreatic surgeries performed for other indications.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) versus pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours is either a classic Whipple operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy but it is still unclear which of the two procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, mortality, complications, perioperative factors and quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

Several publications pointed out both advantages and disadvantages of both techniques and the current basis of evidence remains unclear. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of each technique.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search was conducted to identify all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. Trials were identified by searching the following electronic databases - The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Current Contents. Reference lists from trials selected by electronic searching were hand-searched to identify further relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the classical Whipple (CW) with the pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW) were considered eligible if patients with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data for included studies. A random-effects model was used for pooling data from the different trials. Binary outcomes were compared using odds ratios, continuous outcomes were pooled using weighted mean differences and hazard ratios were used to for the meta-analysis of survival data. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated independently by two authors according to quality standards and by using a questionnaire that covers different aspects of quality.

MAIN RESULTS

1235 abstracts were retrieved and checked for eligibility and seven RCTs were finally included. The critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. The comparison of overall in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.49; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.40; P=0.18), overall survival (hazard ratio 0.84; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P=0.29) and morbidity showed no significant difference. However, operating time (weighted mean difference -68.26 min; 95% CI -105.70 to -30.83; P=0.0004) and intra-operative blood loss (weighted mean difference -0.76 ml; 95% CI -0.96 to -0.56; P<0.00001) were significantly reduced in the PPW group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of relevant differences in mortality, morbidity and survival between the PPW and the CW. Given obvious clinical and methodological inter-study heterogeneity, future efforts have to be undertaken to perform high quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well defined outcome parameters.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of pylorus-preserving versus classical pancreaticoduodenectomy for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of effectiveness between the pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy ("pylorus-preserving Whipple" [PPW]) and the classic Whipple (CW) procedure.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Biosis, Science Citation Index, Ovid Journals) was performed to identify all eligible articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PPW versus CW for periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma were eligible for inclusion. The methodologic quality of included studies was evaluated independently by 2 authors. Quantitative data on perioperative parameters (blood loss, transfusion, operation time, and length of hospital stay), mortality, morbidity, and survival were extracted from included studies for meta-analysis. Pooled estimates of overall treatment effect were calculated using a random effects model.

RESULTS

In total, 1235 abstracts were retrieved and checked for eligibility and 6 RCTs finally included. The critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodologic quality and outcome parameters. The comparison of overall in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.40; P = 0.18), morbidity (odds ratio 0.89; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.62; P = 0.69), and survival (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.07; P = 0.11) showed no significant difference. However, operating time (weighted mean difference, -68.26 minutes; 95% CI, -105.70 to -30.83; P = 0.0004), and intraoperative blood loss (weighted mean difference, -766 mL; 95% CI, -965.26 to -566.74; P = 0.00001) were significantly reduced in the PPW group.

CONCLUSION

Hence, in the absence of relevant differences in mortality, morbidity, and survival, the PPW seems to be as effective as the CW. Given obvious clinical and methodological interstudy heterogeneity, efforts should be intensified in the future to perform high quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well defined outcome parameters.

Meta-analysis of the value of somatostatin and its analogues in reducing complications associated with pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The role of somatostatin and its analogues in reducing complications after pancreatic resection is controversial. This is a meta-analysis of the evidence of benefit.

METHODS

A literature search using Medline and ISI Proceedings with exploration of the references identified 22 studies. Of these, ten met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. Estimates of effectiveness were performed using fixed- and random-effects models. The effect was calculated as an odds ratio (OR) with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Level of significance was set at P < 0.050.

RESULTS

Outcomes for 1918 patients were compared. Somatostatin and its analogues did not reduce the mortality rate after pancreatic surgery (OR 1.17 (0.70 to 1.94); P = 0.545) but did reduce both the total morbidity (OR 0.62 (0.46 to 0.85); P = 0.003) and pancreas-specific complications (OR 0.56 (0.39 to 0.81); P = 0.002). Somatostatin and its analogues reduced the rate of biochemical fistula (OR 0.45 (0.33 to 0.62); P < 0.001) but not the incidence of clinical anastomotic disruption (OR 0.80 (0.44 to 1.45); P = 0.459).

CONCLUSION

Somatostatin and its analogues reduce the incidence of complications after surgery.

Somatostatin and octreotide in the prevention of postoperative pancreatic complications and the treatment of enterocutaneous pancreatic fistulas: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate, through systematic review, the effectiveness of somatostatin and octreotide in the prevention of postoperative pancreatic complications and the treatment of established enterocutaneous pancreatic fistulas.

METHODS

Electronic databases, including Medline and EMBASE, were searched systematically by using keywords including 'somatostatin', 'octreotide', 'fistula' and 'randomiz(s)ed controlled trial'. In addition, citations of relevant primary and review articles were examined. Particular authors were contacted when necessary. Data on patient recruitment, intervention and outcome were extracted from the included trials and analysed.

RESULTS

Use of somatostatin or octreotide for the prevention of postpancreatectomy complications, including pancreatic fistulas, was identified in 14 randomized controlled trials, including one abstract and one conference proceeding, involving a total of 1686 patients. Use of somatostatin or octreotide for the treatment of established enterocutaneous pancreatic fistulas was identified in ten trials involving a total of 301 patients. Significant heterogeneity was found among the identified trials with regard to the definition of fistula, dosage of octreotide, starting time and duration of the treatment, among other factors.

CONCLUSION

There was major disagreement between the studies on whether use of the drugs in question is of value in preventing postoperative complications. This analysis suggests that, in units where the postoperative fistula rate following pancreaticoduodenectomy for neoplasia and other pancreatic conditions exceeds 10 per cent, somatostatin or octreotide administered before operation may significantly reduce the rate of major postoperative complications, particularly pancreatic fistulas. The identified evidence also suggests that there may be a limited role for such drugs in the treatment of established postoperative enterocutaneous pancreatic fistulas. A major conclusion is that further clarification of the roles of these drugs is still required through large, high-quality, randomized trials.

Enteral nutrition prolongs delayed gastric emptying in patients after Whipple resection

BACKGROUND

Delayed gastric emptying is one of the most frequent postoperative complications after Whipple resection. In the present study we evaluated the role of enteral nutrition in the development of delayed gastric emptying after Whipple resection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 1996 and June 1998, 64 patients (30 female, 34 male) underwent a classic (n = 27) or pylorus-preserving (n = 37) Whipple resection. Two patients were excluded; 30 patients received enteral and 32 patients received no-enteral nutrition.

RESULTS

Delayed gastric emptying occurred significantly more in patients with enteral (17 of 30, 57%) than in patients with no-enteral nutrition (5 of 32, 16%) (P <0.01). Consequently, patients in the enteral nutrition group had a nasogastric tube for a significantly (P<0.01) longer period and had a significantly (P<0.01) longer hospital stay than patients in the no-enteral nutrition group. There were no differences in the frequency of occurrence of other postoperative complications between patients with enteral and no-enteral nutrition.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing a Whipple resection, enteral nutrition is associated with a higher frequency of delayed gastric emptying with no advantages regarding other postoperative complications and should therefore be restricted to specific indications.

Economic evaluation of the use of octreotide for prevention of complications following pancreatic resection

Recent studies have concluded that octreotide can prevent complications in patients undergoing pancreatic resections. Given the acquisition cost of octreotide, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to establish whether if the additional cost associated with its use was justified by a decrease in the consumption of other resources. To evaluate success rates and complication rates, a meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trials was conducted. The rates for pancreatic fistula and fluid collection were 10.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.9 to 13.4) and 3.6% (95% CI 1.9 to 5.2) for octreotide vs. 23.4% (95% CI 19.7 to 27. 1) and 8.8% (95% CI 6.2 to 11.3) for placebo. In a second phase we evaluated the treatment cost for patients with and without complications using two different models of cost savings. In the first model the cost to treat a pancreatic fistula was calculated as the per diem rate (as determined by Statistics Canada) multiplied by the incremental length of stay associated with the complication. In the second model we used data from institutions participating in the Ontario Case Costing Project. In model 1 the estimated incremental length of hospital stay attributed to a pancreatic fistula was 7 days, based on a review of the literature, and the per diem was $552. In model 2 the average cost of care for patients with or without complication was $32,347 (n = 17; 95% CI $20,882 to $43,812) and $11, 169 (n = 18; 95% CI $7558 to $14,779), respectively. The data suggest that when compared to placebo, octreotide is a dominant treatment strategy. In model 1, in a cohort of 100 patients, octreotide saved an average of $853 per patient while allowing 16 incremental patients to avoid complications. In model 2 use of octreotide resulted in an average savings of $1642 per patient while still allowing 16 patients to avoid complications. Detailed one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses suggest that both models were robust. The use of octreotide is a cost-effective strategy in patients undergoing elective pancreatic resection. Consideration should be given to extending its use to patients who are at high risk for development of complications following pancreatic surgery and who do not have any contraindications to the use of this drug.

Randomized controlled multicentre study of the prevention of complications by octreotide in patients undergoing surgery for chronic pancreatitis

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre trial was carried out in 247 patients undergoing major elective surgery for chronic pancreatitis to clarify whether the perioperative application of octreotide prevents postoperative complications. Eleven complications were defined, including death, anastomotic leakage, pancreatic fistula, abscess, fluid collection, shock, sepsis, bleeding, pulmonary insufficiency, renal insufficiency and postoperative pancreatitis. A total of 124 patients underwent pancreatic head resection, 55 left resection, 61 pancreaticojejunostomy and seven had other procedures. The overall mortality rate was 1.2 per cent (octreotide group 1.6 per cent, placebo group 0.8 per cent [corrected] (P not significant)). The postoperative complication rate in the octreotide group was 16.4 per cent (20 of 122 patients) and in the placebo group 29.6 per cent (37 of 125) (P < 0.007). The perioperative application of octreotide substantially reduces the risk of postoperative complications in patients undergoing major pancreatic surgery for chronic pancreatitis.