Antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.


Journal

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 01 2022
Historique:
entrez: 11 1 2022
pubmed: 12 1 2022
medline: 8 2 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialised nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant lesions, partial pancreaticoduodenectomy represents the standard treatment for resectable tumours. The gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy can be reestablished via either an antecolic or retrocolic route. The debate about the more favourable technique for bowel reconstruction is ongoing. To compare the effectiveness and safety of antecolic and retrocolic gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy. In this updated version, we conducted a systematic literature search up to 6 July 2021 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 6, MEDLINE (1946 to 6 July 2021), and Embase (1974 to 6 July 2021). We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched reference lists of identified trials to identify further relevant trials, and searched the trial registries clinicaltrials.govand World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We considered all RCTs comparing antecolic with retrocolic reconstruction of bowel continuity after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy for any given indication to be eligible. Two review authors independently screened the identified references and extracted data from the included trials. The same two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials, according to standard Cochrane methodology. We used a random-effects model to pool the results of the individual trials in a meta-analysis. We used odds ratios (OR) to compare binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. Of a total of 287 citations identified by the systematic literature search, we included eight randomised controlled trials (reported in 11 publications), with a total of 818 participants. There was high risk of bias in all of the trials in regard to blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors and unclear risk for selective reporting in six of the trials. There was little or no difference in the frequency of delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.09; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence) with relevant heterogeneity between trials (I There was low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that antecolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy results in little to no difference in morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, or quality of life. Due to heterogeneity in definitions of the endpoints between trials, and differences in postoperative management, future research should be based on clearly defined endpoints and standardised perioperative management, to potentially elucidate differences between these two procedures. Novel strategies should be evaluated for prophylaxis and treatment of common complications, such as delayed gastric emptying.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialised nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant lesions, partial pancreaticoduodenectomy represents the standard treatment for resectable tumours. The gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy can be reestablished via either an antecolic or retrocolic route. The debate about the more favourable technique for bowel reconstruction is ongoing.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of antecolic and retrocolic gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.
SEARCH METHODS
In this updated version, we conducted a systematic literature search up to 6 July 2021 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 6, MEDLINE (1946 to 6 July 2021), and Embase (1974 to 6 July 2021). We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched reference lists of identified trials to identify further relevant trials, and searched the trial registries clinicaltrials.govand World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all RCTs comparing antecolic with retrocolic reconstruction of bowel continuity after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy for any given indication to be eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the identified references and extracted data from the included trials. The same two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials, according to standard Cochrane methodology. We used a random-effects model to pool the results of the individual trials in a meta-analysis. We used odds ratios (OR) to compare binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Of a total of 287 citations identified by the systematic literature search, we included eight randomised controlled trials (reported in 11 publications), with a total of 818 participants. There was high risk of bias in all of the trials in regard to blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors and unclear risk for selective reporting in six of the trials. There was little or no difference in the frequency of delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.09; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence) with relevant heterogeneity between trials (I
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that antecolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy results in little to no difference in morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, or quality of life. Due to heterogeneity in definitions of the endpoints between trials, and differences in postoperative management, future research should be based on clearly defined endpoints and standardised perioperative management, to potentially elucidate differences between these two procedures. Novel strategies should be evaluated for prophylaxis and treatment of common complications, such as delayed gastric emptying.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35014692
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011862.pub3
pmc: PMC8750387
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Review Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

CD011862

Commentaires et corrections

Type : UpdateOf

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Références

Ann Surg. 2021 Dec 1;274(6):935-944
pubmed: 32773628
Ann Surg. 2007 Aug;246(2):246-53
pubmed: 17667503
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 06;9(3):e90316
pubmed: 24603478
Dig Surg. 2016;33(1):15-25
pubmed: 26566023
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2009;16(1):49-55
pubmed: 19083149
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013 Mar;39(3):213-23
pubmed: 23294533
J Gastrointest Surg. 2009 Sep;13(9):1674-82
pubmed: 19548039
HPB (Oxford). 2011 Nov;13(11):792-6
pubmed: 21999592
Ann Surg. 2008 Mar;247(3):456-62
pubmed: 18376190
J Korean Surg Soc. 2011 Oct;81(4):257-62
pubmed: 22111081
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2006;13(3):207-11
pubmed: 16708296
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Aug;98(34):e16663
pubmed: 31441841
Cir Esp. 2013 Apr;91(4):211-6
pubmed: 23452819
J Gastrointest Surg. 2011 May;15(5):843-52
pubmed: 21409601
Ann Surg Oncol. 2005 Mar;12(3):222-7
pubmed: 15827814
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
Br J Surg. 2018 Mar;105(4):339-349
pubmed: 29412453
J Surg Res. 2011 Dec;171(2):e187-92
pubmed: 22001182
World J Surg. 2014 Feb;38(2):465-75
pubmed: 24121364
Br J Surg. 2015 Aug;102(9):1123-32
pubmed: 26086157
Ann Surg. 1993 Sep;218(3):229-37; discussion 237-8
pubmed: 8103982
Surgery. 2007 Nov;142(5):761-8
pubmed: 17981197
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Dec 19;14:135
pubmed: 25524443
Ann Oncol. 2014 Aug;25(8):1650-6
pubmed: 24759568
Surgery. 2005 Jul;138(1):8-13
pubmed: 16003309
HPB (Oxford). 2015 Mar;17(3):202-8
pubmed: 25267428
Br J Surg. 2012 Mar;99(3):404-10
pubmed: 22237731
HPB (Oxford). 2012 Oct;14(10):700-8
pubmed: 22954007
Ann Surg. 2014 Jan;259(1):45-51
pubmed: 24096769
BMJ. 1994 Sep 3;309(6954):597-9
pubmed: 8086953
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Apr 20;5:13
pubmed: 15840177
J Surg Res. 2016 Jan;200(1):147-57
pubmed: 26344400
Ann Surg. 2006 Mar;243(3):316-20
pubmed: 16495694
World J Gastroenterol. 2012 Nov 21;18(43):6315-23
pubmed: 23180954
Arch Surg. 2003 Dec;138(12):1310-4; discussion 1315
pubmed: 14662530
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Sep 30;9:CD011862
pubmed: 27689801
HPB (Oxford). 2014 Apr;16(4):384-94
pubmed: 23991719
BMJ. 1997 Nov 22;315(7119):1371-4
pubmed: 9432250
Asian J Surg. 2019 Nov;42(11):963-968
pubmed: 30792049
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008 Aug;34(8):868-875
pubmed: 18299182
Ann Surg. 2018 Jun;267(6):1021-1027
pubmed: 28885510
HPB Surg. 2015;2015:791704
pubmed: 25918455
Pancreatology. 2016 Jan-Feb;16(1):142-50
pubmed: 26699686
Surgery. 2007 Jul;142(1):20-5
pubmed: 17629996
Br J Surg. 2015 Mar;102(4):331-40
pubmed: 25644428
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
Ann Surg. 2013 May;257(5):938-42
pubmed: 23579543
N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 20;379(25):2395-2406
pubmed: 30575490
J Am Coll Surg. 2003 Jun;196(6):954-64
pubmed: 12788434
Ann Surg. 2004 May;239(5):651-7; discussion 657-9
pubmed: 15082969
BMC Gastroenterol. 2015 Jun 16;15:68
pubmed: 26076690
World J Surg. 2020 Jul;44(7):2314-2322
pubmed: 32166469
Arch Surg. 2005 Nov;140(11):1094-9
pubmed: 16301447
Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Jul;102(7):1377-82
pubmed: 17403071

Auteurs

Felix J Hüttner (FJ)

Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Ulm University Hospital , Ulm , Germany.

Rosa Klotz (R)

Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Alexis Ulrich (A)

Department of General, Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery , Lukas Hospital Neuss , Neuss , Germany.

Markus W Büchler (MW)

Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Pascal Probst (P)

Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of Surgery , Cantonal Hospital Thurgau , Frauenfeld , Switzerland.

Markus K Diener (MK)

Department of General and Visceral Surgery , Medical Center, University of Freiburg , Freiburg , Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH