11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect of artificial or autologous coverage of the pancreatic remnant or anastomosis on postoperative pancreatic fistulas after partial pancreatectomy: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Postoperative pancreatic fistulas remain a driver of major complications after partial pancreatectomy. It is unclear whether coverage of the anastomosis or pancreatic remnant can reduce the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistulas. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of autologous or artificial coverage of the pancreatic remnant or anastomosis on outcomes after partial pancreatectomy.

          Methods

          A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to March 2024. All RCTs analysing a coverage method in patients undergoing partial pancreatoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy were included. The primary outcome was postoperative pancreatic fistula development. Subgroup analyses for pancreatoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy and artificial or autologous coverage were conducted.

          Results

          A total of 18 RCTs with 2326 patients were included. In the overall analysis, coverage decreased the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistulas by 29% (OR 0.71, 95% c.i. 0.54 to 0.93, P < 0.01). This decrease was also seen in the 12 RCTs covering the remnant after distal pancreatectomy (OR 0.69, 95% c.i. 0.51 to 0.94, P < 0.02) and the 4 RCTs applying autologous coverage after pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy (OR 0.53, 95% c.i. 0.29 to 0.96, P < 0.04). Other subgroup analyses (artificial coverage or pancreatoduodenectomy) showed no statistically significant differences. The secondary endpoints of mortality, reoperations, and re-interventions were each affected positively by the use of coverage techniques. The certainty of evidence was very low to moderate.

          Conclusion

          The implementation of coverage, whether artificial or autologous, is beneficial after partial pancreatectomy, especially in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy with autologous coverage.

          Abstract

          Postoperative pancreatic fistulas remain the major complication after partial pancreatectomy. All RCTs investigating the potential benefits of artificial or autologous coverage after partial pancreatectomy were analysed. Coverage techniques as a whole, but especially performed in distal pancreatectomy and the application of autologous material, reduce the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistulas and mitigate their postoperative burden.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.

            Although quality assessment is gaining increasing attention, there is still no consensus on how to define and grade postoperative complications. This shortcoming hampers comparison of outcome data among different centers and therapies and over time. A classification of complications published by one of the authors in 1992 was critically re-evaluated and modified to increase its accuracy and its acceptability in the surgical community. Modifications mainly focused on the manner of reporting life-threatening and permanently disabling complications. The new grading system still mostly relies on the therapy used to treat the complication. The classification was tested in a cohort of 6336 patients who underwent elective general surgery at our institution. The reproducibility and personal judgment of the classification were evaluated through an international survey with 2 questionnaires sent to 10 surgical centers worldwide. The new ranking system significantly correlated with complexity of surgery (P < 0.0001) as well as with the length of the hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A total of 144 surgeons from 10 different centers around the world and at different levels of training returned the survey. Ninety percent of the case presentations were correctly graded. The classification was considered to be simple (92% of the respondents), reproducible (91%), logical (92%), useful (90%), and comprehensive (89%). The answers of both questionnaires were not dependent on the origin of the reply and the level of training of the surgeons. The new complication classification appears reliable and may represent a compelling tool for quality assessment in surgery in all parts of the world.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range

              Background In systematic reviews and meta-analysis, researchers often pool the results of the sample mean and standard deviation from a set of similar clinical trials. A number of the trials, however, reported the study using the median, the minimum and maximum values, and/or the first and third quartiles. Hence, in order to combine results, one may have to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation for such trials. Methods In this paper, we propose to improve the existing literature in several directions. First, we show that the sample standard deviation estimation in Hozo et al.’s method (BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13, 2005) has some serious limitations and is always less satisfactory in practice. Inspired by this, we propose a new estimation method by incorporating the sample size. Second, we systematically study the sample mean and standard deviation estimation problem under several other interesting settings where the interquartile range is also available for the trials. Results We demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods through simulation studies for the three frequently encountered scenarios, respectively. For the first two scenarios, our method greatly improves existing methods and provides a nearly unbiased estimate of the true sample standard deviation for normal data and a slightly biased estimate for skewed data. For the third scenario, our method still performs very well for both normal data and skewed data. Furthermore, we compare the estimators of the sample mean and standard deviation under all three scenarios and present some suggestions on which scenario is preferred in real-world applications. Conclusions In this paper, we discuss different approximation methods in the estimation of the sample mean and standard deviation and propose some new estimation methods to improve the existing literature. We conclude our work with a summary table (an Excel spread sheet including all formulas) that serves as a comprehensive guidance for performing meta-analysis in different situations. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-135) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                BJS Open
                BJS Open
                bjsopen
                BJS Open
                Oxford University Press (UK )
                2474-9842
                June 2024
                30 May 2024
                30 May 2024
                : 8
                : 3
                : zrae059
                Affiliations
                Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Thurgau , Münsterlingen, Switzerland
                Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Thurgau , Münsterlingen, Switzerland
                Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Thurgau , Münsterlingen, Switzerland
                Study Centre of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC), University of Heidelberg , Heidelberg, Germany
                Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Thurgau , Münsterlingen, Switzerland
                Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Thurgau , Münsterlingen, Switzerland
                Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Thurgau , Frauenfeld, Switzerland
                Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Thurgau , Münsterlingen, Switzerland
                Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Thurgau , Frauenfeld, Switzerland
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Pascal Probst, Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Thurgau, Pfaffenholzstrasse 4, Frauenfeld, CH-8501, Switzerland (e-mail: pascal.probst@ 123456stgag.ch )
                Article
                zrae059
                10.1093/bjsopen/zrae059
                11138960
                38814751
                906bc698-c10f-49ad-a618-5a6d95017a67
                © The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 19 January 2024
                : 10 April 2024
                : 20 April 2024
                Page count
                Pages: 13
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                AcademicSubjects/MED00910
                Bjs/5
                Bjs/3
                Bjs/2

                Comments

                Comment on this article