Article information
Abstract
This is a critical analysis of prospective randomised trials that compare pancreatic reconstruction techniques with the stomach and the intestine, after pancreaticoduodenectomy. A questionnaire with questions from the Evidence Based Medicine Centre of Oxford University (PICO analysis) was used, following the criteria for the evaluation of randomised prospective studies for surgical interventions of the McMaster University in Ontario. It was found that the studies differed in methodological aspects, the most important being the lack of a uniform definition of a pancreatic fistula. The techniques for performing pancreaticogastrostomy and pancreaticojejunostomy were not homogeneous. There were no differences in the percentage of pancreatic fistula in three of these studies; one which modified the pancreaticogastrostomy technique had more favourable results. New comparative studies should use new definitions of the complications of pancreaticoduodenectomy and standardise the pancreatic reconstruction technique.
Keywords:
Prospective randomised studies
Pancreaticojejunostomy
Pancreaticoduodenectomy
Pancreaticogastrostomy
Complications
Resumen
Este es un análisis crítico de los ensayos prospectivos aleatorizados que comparan las técnicas de reconstrucción pancreática con el estómago y con el intestino, después de pancreaticoduodenectomía. Se utilizó un cuestionario de preguntas del Centro de Medicina Basada en Evidencias de la Universidad de Oxford (análisis PICO), y se han seguido los criterios en la evaluación de estudios prospectivos aleatorizados para intervenciones quirúrgicas de la Universidad de McMaster de Ontario. Se encontró que los estudios difieren en aspectos metodológicos, el más importante la falta de una definición uniforme de fístula pancreática. Las técnicas de realización de la pancreaticogastrostomía y pancreaticoyeyunostomía no fueron homogéneas. No existen diferencias en el porcentaje de fístula pancreática en tres de estos estudios; uno que modifica la técnica de pancreticogastrostomía presentó resultados más favorables. Los nuevos estudios comparativos deberán utilizar las nuevas definiciones de las complicaciones de la pancreaticoduodenectomía y estandarizar la técnica de reconstrucción pancreática.
Palabras clave:
Estudios prospectivos aleatorizados
Pancreaticoyeyunostomía
Pancreaticoduodenectomía
Pancreaticogastrostomía
Complicaciones
Full text is only aviable in PDF
References
[1.]
M. Trede, G. Schwall, H.D. Saeger.
Survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy: 118 consecutive resections without an operative mortality.
Ann Surg, 211 (1990), pp. 447-458
[2.]
J.L. Cameron, H.A. Pitt, C.J. Yeo, H.S. Kaufman, J. Coleman.
One hundred and forty five consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies without mortality.
Ann Surg, 217 (1993), pp. 430-438
[3.]
D.W. Crist, J.V. Sitzmann, J.L. Cameron.
Improved hospital mortality after the Whipple operation.
Ann Surg, 206 (1987), pp. 358-373
[4.]
C. Fernández-del Castillo, D.W. Rattner, A.L. Warshaw.
Standards for pancreatic resection in the 1990s.
Arch Surg, 130 (1995), pp. 295-299
[5.]
P.A. Grace, H.A. Pitt, R.K. Tompkins, L. DenBesten, W.P. Longmire.
Decreased morbidity and mortality after the Whipple procedure.
Ann Surg, 127 (1992), pp. 945-949
[6.]
B.W. Miedema, M.G. Sarr, J.A. van Heerdeen, D.M. Nagorney, D.C. McIlrath, D. Ilstrup.
Complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Current management.
Arch Surg, 127 (1992), pp. 945-950
[7.]
C.J. Yeo, J.L. Cameron, T.A. Sohn, K.D. Lillemoe, H.A. Pitt, M.A. Talamini, et al.
Six hundred fifty consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies in the 1990s: pathology, complications, and outcomes.
Ann Surg, 226 (1997), pp. 248-260
[8.]
S.V. Shrikhande, S.S. Qureshi, N. Rajneesh, P.J. Shukla.
Pancreatic anastomoses after pancreaticoduodenectomy: do we need further studies?.
World J Surg, 29 (2005), pp. 1642-1649
[9.]
A. Berger, T. Howard, E. Kennedy, P.K. Sauter, M. Bower-Cherry, S. Dutkevitch, et al.
Does Type of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy decrease rate of pancreatic fistula? A randomized, prospective, dual-institution trial.
J Am Coll Surg, 208 (2009), pp. 738-749
[10.]
S.M. Strasberg, J.A. Drebin, N.A. Mokadam, D.W. Green, K.L. Jones, J.P. Ehlers, et al.
Prospective trial of a blood supplybased technique of pancreaticojejunostomy: effect on anastomotic failure in the Whipple procedure.
J Am Coll Surg, 194 (2002), pp. 746-758
[11.]
T. Shibuya, K. Uchiyama, S. Imai, J. Shibuya, T. Shoji.
Improvement of pancreaticojejunostomy in pancreatoduodenectomy.
Int Surg, 80 (1995), pp. 57-60
[12.]
P.W. Lin, J.C. Lee, P.C. Lee, T.W. Chang, C.J. Hung, Y.C. Chang, et al.
A simple, secure and universal pancreaticojejunostomy following pancreaticoduodenectomy.
HPB Surg, 10 (1997), pp. 305-310
[13.]
R. Hosotani, R. Doi, M. Imamura.
Duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy reduces the risk of pancreatic leakage after pancreatoduodenectomy.
World J Surg, 26 (2002), pp. 99-104
[14.]
B.S. Greene, J.M. Loubeau, J.B. Peoples, D.W. Elliott.
Are pancreaticoenteric anastomoses improved by duct-to-mucosa sutures?.
Am J Surg, 161 (1991), pp. 45-50
[15.]
R.F. Payne, J.A. Pain.
Duct-to-mucosa pancreaticogastrostomy is a safe anastomosis following pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Br J Surg, 93 (2006), pp. 73-77
[16.]
C. Bassi, M. Falconi, E. Molinari, W. Mantovani, G. Butturini, A.A. Gumbs, et al.
Duct-to-mucosa versus end-toside pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial.
Surgery, 134 (2003), pp. 766-771
[17.]
Y. Murakami, K. Uemura, Y. Hayashidani, T. Sudo, Y. Hashimoto, N. Nakagawa, et al.
No mortality after 150 consecutive pancreatoduodenctomies with duct-to-mucosa pancreaticogastrostomy.
J Surg Oncol, 97 (2008), pp. 205-209
[18.]
M. Tsuji, H. Kimura, K. Konishi, K. Yabushita, K. Maeda, Y. Kuroda.
Management of continuous anastomosis of pancreatic duct and jejunal mucosa after pancreaticoduodenectomy: historical study of 300 patients.
Surgery, 123 (1998), pp. 617-621
[19.]
R.T. Poon, S.T. Fan, C.M. Lo, K.K. Ng, W.K. Yuen, C. Yeung, et al.
External drainage of pancreatic duct with a stent to reduce leakage rate of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized trial.
Ann Surg, 246 (2007), pp. 425-433
[20.]
J.D. Roder, H.J. Stein, K.A. Bottcher, R. Busch, C.D. Heidecke, J.R. Siewert.
Stented versus nonstented pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. A prospective study.
Ann Surg, 1 (1999), pp. 41-48
[21.]
T. Biehl, L.W. Traverso.
Is stenting necessary for a successful pancreatic anastomosis?.
Am J Surg, 163 (1992), pp. 530-532
[22.]
F. Yoshimi, H. Ono, Y. Asato, T. Ohta, S. Koizumi, R. Amemiya, et al.
Internal stenting of the hepaticojejunostomy and pancreaticojejunostomy in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy to promote earlier discharge from hospital.
Surg Today, 26 (1996), pp. 665-667
[23.]
S. Takano, Y. Ito, Y. Watanabe, T. Yokoyama, N. Kubota, S. Iwai.
Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy in reconstruction following pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Br J Surg, 87 (2000), pp. 423-427
[24.]
M.E. Zenilman.
Use of pancreaticogastrostomy for pancreatic reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
J Clin Gastroenterol, 31 (2000), pp. 11-18
[25.]
S. O’Neil, J. Pickleman, G.V. Aranha.
Pancreaticogastrostomy following pancreaticoduodenectomy: review of 102 consecutive cases.
World J Surg, 25 (2001), pp. 567-571
[26.]
J.Y. Jang, S.W. Kim, S.J. Park, Y.H. Park.
Comparison of the functional outcome after pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy: pancreatogastrostomy and pancreatojejunostomy.
World J Surg, 26 (2002), pp. 366-371
[27.]
H.J. Schlitt, U. Schmidt, D. Simunec, M. Jäger, H. Aselmann, M. Neipp, et al.
Morbidity and mortality associated with pancreatogastrostomy and pancreatojejunostomy following partial pancreatoduodenectomy.
Br J Surg, 89 (2002), pp. 1245-1251
[28.]
G.V. Aranha, P. Hodul, E. Golts, D. Oh, J. Pickleman, S. Creech.
A comparison of pancreaticogastrostomy and pancreaticojejunostomy following pancreaticoduodenectomy.
J Gastrointest Surg, 7 (2003), pp. 672-682
[29.]
E. Oussoultzoglou, P. Bachellier, J.M. Bigourdan, J.C. Weber, H. Nakano, D. Jaeck.
Pancreaticogastrostomy decreased relaparotomy caused by pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy compared with pancreaticojejunostomy.
Arch Surg, 139 (2004), pp. 327-335
[30.]
J. Standop, M. Overhaus, N. Schaefer, D. Decker, M. Wolff, A. Hirner, et al.
Pancreatogastrostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy: a safe, feasible reconstruction method?.
World J Surg, 29 (2005), pp. 505-512
[31.]
A. Rault, A. SaCunha, D. Klopfenstein, D. Larroudé, F.N. Epoy, D. Collet, et al.
Pancreaticojejunal anastomosis is preferable to pancreaticogastrostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy for longterm outcomes of pancreatic exocrine function.
J Am Coll Surg, 201 (2005), pp. 239-244
[32.]
C.J. Yeo, J.L. Cameron, M.M. Maher, P.K. Sauter, M.L. Zahurak, M.A. Talamini, et al.
A prospective randomized trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Ann Surg, 222 (1995), pp. 580-588
[33.]
J.P. Duffas, B. Suc, S. Msika, G. Fourtanier, F. Muscari, J.M. Hay, et al.
A controlled randomized multicenter trial of pancreatogastrostomy or pancreatojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy.
Am J Surg, 189 (2005), pp. 720-729
[34.]
C. Bassi, M. Falconi, E. Molinari, R. Salvia, G. Butturini, N. Sartori, et al.
Reconstruction by pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy following pancreatectomy: results of a comparative study.
Ann Surg, 242 (2005), pp. 767-771
[35.]
L. Fernández-Cruz, R. Cosa, L. Blanco, M. López Boado, E. Astudillo.
Pancretogastrostomy with gastric partition after pyloruspreserving pancreatoduodenectomy versus conventional pancreatojejunostomy. A prospective randomized study.
Ann Surg, 248 (2008), pp. 930-937
[36.]
F. Farrokhyar, P. Karanicolas, A. Thoma, M. Simunovic, M. Bhandari, P.J. Devereaux, et al.
Randomized Controlled Trials of Surgical Interventions.
Ann Surg, 251 (2010), pp. 409-416
[37.]
C. Bassi, C. Dervenis, G. Butturini, A. Fingerhut, C. Yeo, J. Izbicki, et al.
Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition.
Surgery, 138 (2005), pp. 8-13
[38.]
K.M. Reid-Lombardo, M. Farnell, S. Crippa, M. Barnett, G. Maupin, C. Bassi, Members of the Pancreatic Anastomotic Leak Study Group, et al.
Pancreatic anastomotic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy in 1,507 Patients: a report from the pancreatic anastomotic leak study.
J Gastrointest Surg, 11 (2007), pp. 1451-1459
[39.]
S.M. Strasberg, D.C. Linehan, P.A. Clavien, J.S. Barkun.
Proposal for definition and severity grading of pancreatic anastomosis failure and pancreatic occlusion failure.
Surgery, 141 (2007), pp. 420-426
[40.]
N. Howes, L. Chagla, M. Thorpe, P. McCulloch.
Surgical practice is evidence based.
Br J Surg, 84 (1997), pp. 1220-1223
[41.]
M.J. Solomon, R.S. McLeod.
Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations?.
Surgery, 118 (1995), pp. 459-467
[42.]
P. McCulloch, I. Taylor, M. Sasako, B. Lovett, D. Griffin.
Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions.
BMJ, 324 (2002), pp. 1448-1451
[43.]
R. Lilford, D. Braunholtz, J. Harris, et al.
Trials in surgery.
Br J Surg, 91 (2004), pp. 6-16
[44.]
D.G. Altman, K.F. Schulz.
Statistics notes: concealing treatment allocation in randomised trials.
BMJ, 323 (2001), pp. 446-447
[45.]
K.F. Schulz, D.A. Grimes.
Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what.
Lancet, 359 (2002), pp. 696-700
[46.]
R.S. McLeod.
Issues in surgical randomized controlled trials.
World J Surg, 23 (1999), pp. 1210-1214
[47.]
D. Fergusson, S.D. Aaron, G. Guyatt, P. Hébert.
Postrandomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis.
BMJ, 325 (2002), pp. 652-654
[48.]
J.M. Young, M.J. Solomon.
Improving the evidence base in surgery: sources of bias in surgical studies.
ANZ J Surg, 73 (2003), pp. 504-506
[49.]
P.J. Devereaux, M. Bhandari, M. Clarke, V.M. Montori, D.J. Cook, S. Yusuf, et al.
Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials.
BMJ, 330 (2005), pp. 388
[50.]
D. Moher, D.J. Cook, S. Eastwood, I. Olkin, D. Rennie, D.F. Stroup.
Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. QUOROM Group.
Br J Surg, 87 (2000), pp. 1448-1454
[51.]
A. McKay, S. Mackenzie, F.R. Sutherland, O.F. Bathe, C. Doig, J. Dort, et al.
Meta-analysis of pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Br J Surg, 93 (2006), pp. 929-936
[52.]
M. Wente, S. Shrikhande, M. Müller, M.K. Diener, C.M. Seiler, H. Friess, et al.
Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy: systematic review and metaanalysis.
Am J Surg, 193 (2007), pp. 171-183
Copyright © 2011. Asociación Española de Cirujanos
