A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Pylorus-preserving Versus Classical Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Surgical Treatment of Periampullary and Pancreatic Carcinoma
- 1 February 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Annals of Surgery
- Vol. 245 (2) , 187-200
- https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000242711.74502.a9
Abstract
Comparison of effectiveness between the pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy ("pylorus-preserving Whipple" [PPW]) and the classic Whipple (CW) procedure. 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. 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. 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.Keywords
This publication has 61 references indexed in Scilit:
- A prospective randomized trial comparing standard pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatoduodenectomy with extended lymphadenectomy in resectable pancreatic head adenocarcinomaSurgery, 2005
- Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without pylorus preservation have similar outcomes: Abstracted from: Tran KTC, Smeenk HG, van Eijck CHJ, et al. Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy versus standard Whipple procedure – a prospective, randomized, multicenter analysis of 170 patients with pancreatic and periampullary tumors. Ann Surg 2004;240:738–45.Cancer Treatment Reviews, 2005
- Influence of Surgical Resection and Post-Operative Complications on Survival following Adjuvant Treatment for Pancreatic Cancer in the ESPAC-1 Randomized Controlled TrialDigestive Surgery, 2005
- Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?Controlled Clinical Trials, 1996
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA, 1995
- Lymph Node Involvement and Pancreatic ResectionPancreas, 1993
- Morbidity and Mortality After Radical and Palliative Pancreatic Cancer Surgery Risk Factors Influencing the Short-Term ResultsAnnals of Surgery, 1993
- Pylorus-preserving versus standard pancreaticoduodenectomy: an analysis of 110 pancreatic and periampullary carcinomasBritish Journal of Surgery, 1992
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986
- Carcinoma of ampulla of vater successful radical resectionBritish Journal of Surgery, 1944