TY - JOUR
T1 - Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy
T2 - systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Wente, Moritz N.
AU - Shrikhande, Shailesh V.
AU - Müller, Michael W.
AU - Diener, Markus K.
AU - Seiler, Christoph M.
AU - Friess, Helmut
AU - Büchler, Markus W.
PY - 2007/2
Y1 - 2007/2
N2 - Objective: Pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) and pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) are the commonly preferred methods of anastomosis after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). The ideal choice of anastomosis remains a matter of debate. Data Sources: Articles published until end of March 2006 comparing PJ and PG after PD were searched. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently assessed quality and eligibility of the studies and extracted data for further analysis. Meta-analysis was performed with a random-effects model by using weighted odds ratios. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Sixteen articles were included; meta-analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (RCT) revealed no significant difference between PJ and PG regarding overall postoperative complications, pancreatic fistula, intra-abdominal fluid collection, or mortality. On the contrary, analysis of 13 nonrandomized observational clinical studies (OCSs) showed significant results in favor of PG for the outcome parameters with a reduction of pancreatic fistula and mortality in favor of PG. Conclusions: All OCSs reported superiority of PG over PJ, most likely influenced by publication bias. In contrast, all RCTs failed to show advantage of a particular technique, suggesting that both PJ and PG provide equally good results. This meta-analysis yet again highlights the singular importance of performing well-designed RCTs and the role of evidence-based medicine in guiding modern surgical practice.
AB - Objective: Pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) and pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) are the commonly preferred methods of anastomosis after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). The ideal choice of anastomosis remains a matter of debate. Data Sources: Articles published until end of March 2006 comparing PJ and PG after PD were searched. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently assessed quality and eligibility of the studies and extracted data for further analysis. Meta-analysis was performed with a random-effects model by using weighted odds ratios. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Sixteen articles were included; meta-analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (RCT) revealed no significant difference between PJ and PG regarding overall postoperative complications, pancreatic fistula, intra-abdominal fluid collection, or mortality. On the contrary, analysis of 13 nonrandomized observational clinical studies (OCSs) showed significant results in favor of PG for the outcome parameters with a reduction of pancreatic fistula and mortality in favor of PG. Conclusions: All OCSs reported superiority of PG over PJ, most likely influenced by publication bias. In contrast, all RCTs failed to show advantage of a particular technique, suggesting that both PJ and PG provide equally good results. This meta-analysis yet again highlights the singular importance of performing well-designed RCTs and the role of evidence-based medicine in guiding modern surgical practice.
KW - Complications
KW - Meta-analysis
KW - Pancreaticoduodenectomy
KW - Pancreaticogastrostomy
KW - Pancreaticojejunostomy
KW - Systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33846228684&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.10.010
DO - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.10.010
M3 - Article
C2 - 17236843
AN - SCOPUS:33846228684
SN - 0002-9610
VL - 193
SP - 171
EP - 183
JO - American Journal of Surgery
JF - American Journal of Surgery
IS - 2
ER -