IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0090316.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pylorus-Preserving Versus Pylorus-Resecting Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Periampullary and Pancreatic Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Chong Yang
  • He-Shui Wu
  • Xing-Lin Chen
  • Chun-You Wang
  • Shan-Miao Gou
  • Jun Xiao
  • Zhi-Qiang He
  • Qi-Jun Chen
  • Yong-Feng Li

Abstract

Background: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the long-term survival, mortality, morbidity and the operation-related events in patients with periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma undergoing pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) and pylorus-resecting pancreaticoduodenectomy (PRPD). Method: A systematic search of literature databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science) was performed to identify studies. Outcome measures comparing PPPD versus PRPD for periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma were long-term survival, mortality, morbidity (overall morbidity, delayed gastric emptying [DGE], pancreatic fistula, wound infection, postoperative bleeding, biliary leakage, ascites and gastroenterostomy leakage) and operation related events (hospital stays, operating time, intraoperative blood loss and red blood cell transfusions). Results: Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 622 patients were identified and included in the analysis. Among these patients, it revealed no difference in long-term survival between the PPPD and PRPD groups (HR = 0.23, p = 0.11). There was a lower rate of DGE (RR = 2.35, p = 0.04, 95% CI, 1.06–5.21) with PRPD. Mortality, overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula, wound infection, postoperative bleeding, biliary leakage, ascites and gastroenterostomy leakage were not significantly different between the groups. PPPDs were performed more quickly than PRPDs (WMD = 53.25 minutes, p = 0.01, 95% CI, 12.53–93.97); and there was less estimated intraoperative blood loss (WMD = 365.21 ml, p = 0.006, 95% CI, 102.71–627.71) and fewer red blood cell transfusions (WMD = 0.29 U, p = 0.003, 95% CI, 0.10–0.48) in patients undergoing PPPD. The hospital stays showed no significant difference. Conclusions: PPPD had advantages over PRPD in operating time, intraoperative blood loss and red blood cell transfusions, but had a significantly higher rate of DGE for periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. PPPD and PRPD had comparable mortality and morbidity including pancreatic fistulas, wound infections, postoperative bleeding, biliary leakage, ascites and gastroenterostomy leakage. Our conclusions were limited by the available data. Further evaluations of high-quality RCTs are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Chong Yang & He-Shui Wu & Xing-Lin Chen & Chun-You Wang & Shan-Miao Gou & Jun Xiao & Zhi-Qiang He & Qi-Jun Chen & Yong-Feng Li, 2014. "Pylorus-Preserving Versus Pylorus-Resecting Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Periampullary and Pancreatic Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-11, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0090316
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090316
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090316
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090316&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0090316?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wenming Wu & Xiafei Hong & Lilan Fu & Shanglong Liu & Lei You & Li Zhou & Yupei Zhao, 2014. "The Effect of Pylorus Removal on Delayed Gastric Emptying after Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Meta-Analysis of 2,599 Patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-10, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0090316. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.