Digestive surgery · 2015
Effect of Antecolic versus Retrocolic Gastroenteric Reconstruction after Pancreaticoduodenectomy on Delayed Gastric Emptying: A Meta-Analysis of Six Randomized Controlled Trials.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Joliat Gaëtan-Romain, Labgaa Ismaïl, Demartines Nicolas, Schäfer Markus, Allemann Pierre
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: One of the most frequent complications of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is delayed gastric emptying (DGE). The study aim was to evaluate the impact of the type of gastro/duodenojejunal reconstruction (antecolic vs. retrocolic) after PD on DGE incidence.
METHODS: A systematic review was made according to the PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antecolic vs. retrocolic reconstruction were included irrespective of the PD techniques. A meta-analysis was then performed.
RESULTS: Six RCTs were included for a total of 588 patients. The overall quality was good. General risk of bias was low. DGE was not statistically significantly different between the antecolic and retrocolic group (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.31-1.16, p = 0.13). The other main surgery-related complications (pancreatic fistula, hemorrhage, intra-abdominal abscess, bile leak and wound infection) were not dependent on the reconstruction route (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.41-1.70, p = 0.63). No statistically significant difference in terms of length of hospital stay was found between the 2 groups. There was also no difference of DGE incidence if only pylorus-preserving PD was considered and between the DGE grades A, B or C.
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows that antecolic reconstruction after PD is not superior to retrocolic reconstruction in terms of DGE.
METHODS: A systematic review was made according to the PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antecolic vs. retrocolic reconstruction were included irrespective of the PD techniques. A meta-analysis was then performed.
RESULTS: Six RCTs were included for a total of 588 patients. The overall quality was good. General risk of bias was low. DGE was not statistically significantly different between the antecolic and retrocolic group (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.31-1.16, p = 0.13). The other main surgery-related complications (pancreatic fistula, hemorrhage, intra-abdominal abscess, bile leak and wound infection) were not dependent on the reconstruction route (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.41-1.70, p = 0.63). No statistically significant difference in terms of length of hospital stay was found between the 2 groups. There was also no difference of DGE incidence if only pylorus-preserving PD was considered and between the DGE grades A, B or C.
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows that antecolic reconstruction after PD is not superior to retrocolic reconstruction in terms of DGE.