RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to compare postoperative outcomes between pancreaticogastrostomy and pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: Six databases were systematically reviewed to identify randomized controlled trials comparing pancreaticogastrostomy and pancreaticojejunostomy. Studies reporting postoperative complications, reoperations, and mortality were included (PROSPERO registration number CRD42013005383). RESULTS: The search provided a total of 1,646 references. Seven studies were selected including 1,121 patients, 562 in the pancreaticogastrostomy group and 559 in the pancreaticojejunostomy group. Overall incidence of pancreatic fistula and the incidence of more severe fistulas (grade B/C) were lower in the pancreaticogastrostomy group (relative risk 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.86; p = 0.002 and relative risk 0.61; 95 % CI 0.40 to 0.93; p = 0.02). Abdominal collections were more frequent in the pancreaticojejunostomy group. However, pancreaticogastrostomy was associated with an increased risk of postoperative intraluminal hemorrhage, and there were no differences in overall morbidity, reoperations, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a reduction in the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula in the pancreaticogastrostomy group was observed. Although this evidence comes from randomized trials, pancreaticogastrostomy cannot be considered superior to pancreaticojejunostomy due to the presence of clinical heterogeneity among studies and the absence of differences in overall morbidity, reoperations, and mortality.
Asunto(s)
Conductos Pancreáticos/cirugía , Fístula Pancreática/epidemiología , Pancreaticoduodenectomía , Pancreatoyeyunostomía , Hemorragia Posoperatoria/epidemiología , Estómago/cirugía , Humanos , Incidencia , Tiempo de Internación , Pancreaticoduodenectomía/mortalidad , Pancreatoyeyunostomía/mortalidad , Readmisión del Paciente , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , ReoperaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SILA when compared with CLA through a systematic review. METHODS: We performed an electronic search of EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared SILA with CLA were included. RESULTS: Six RCTs met eligibility criteria, which included a total of 800 patients, 401 in the SILA group and 399 in the CLA group. There were no significant differences in terms of overall complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.47; p = 0.77). SILA had a higher technical failure rate (OR 3.30; 95% CI 1.26-8.65; p = 0.01) and required a longer operative time (mean difference [MD] 4.67; 95% CI 1.76-7.57; p = 0.002). SILA was associated with better cosmetic results (standardized MD -0.4; 95% CI -0.64 to -0.16; p = 0.001) and earlier return to normal activity (MD -0.64; 95% CI -1.09 to -0.20; p = 0.005), although these advantages should be taken with caution due to the small number of studies reporting these two items and the short follow-up in the evaluation of cosmetic results. There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative pain or length of hospital stay between groups. CONCLUSIONS: SILA is comparable to CLA in selected patients, although it is associated with a higher technical failure rate and longer operative time. Further randomized trials are needed to determine if SILA really offers benefits over CLA.