胰胃吻合术与胰空肠吻合术:一项最新的随机对照试验荟萃分析。

IF 1.6 Q4 ONCOLOGY
International Journal of Surgical Oncology Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-07-17 DOI:10.1155/2017/7526494
Konstantinos Perivoliotis, Eleni Sioka, Athina Tatsioni, Ioannis Stefanidis, Elias Zintzaras, Dimitrios Zacharoulis
{"title":"胰胃吻合术与胰空肠吻合术:一项最新的随机对照试验荟萃分析。","authors":"Konstantinos Perivoliotis,&nbsp;Eleni Sioka,&nbsp;Athina Tatsioni,&nbsp;Ioannis Stefanidis,&nbsp;Elias Zintzaras,&nbsp;Dimitrios Zacharoulis","doi":"10.1155/2017/7526494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A meta-analysis was conducted in order to provide an up-to-date comparison of pancreatogastrostomy (PG) and pancreatojejunostomy (PJ), after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), in terms of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and other postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials was performed. Fixed Effects or Random Effects model was used, based on the Cochran <i>Q</i> test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 10 studies (1629 patients) were included. There was no statistical significance between PG and PJ regarding the rate of clinically significant POPF (OR: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.46-1.06). PG was associated with a higher rate of postpancreatoduodenectomy haemorrhage (PPH) (OR: 1.52, 95%CI: 1.08-2.14). There was no difference between the two techniques in terms of clinically significant PPH (OR: 1.35, 95%CI: 0.95-1.93) and clinically significant postoperative delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (OR: 0.98, 95%CI: 0.59-1.63).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>There is no difference between the two anastomotic techniques regarding the rate of clinically significant POPF. Given several limitations, more large scale high quality RCTs are required.</p>","PeriodicalId":45960,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Surgical Oncology","volume":"2017 ","pages":"7526494"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2017/7526494","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pancreatogastrostomy versus Pancreatojejunostomy: An Up-to-Date Meta-Analysis of RCTs.\",\"authors\":\"Konstantinos Perivoliotis,&nbsp;Eleni Sioka,&nbsp;Athina Tatsioni,&nbsp;Ioannis Stefanidis,&nbsp;Elias Zintzaras,&nbsp;Dimitrios Zacharoulis\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2017/7526494\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A meta-analysis was conducted in order to provide an up-to-date comparison of pancreatogastrostomy (PG) and pancreatojejunostomy (PJ), after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), in terms of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and other postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials was performed. Fixed Effects or Random Effects model was used, based on the Cochran <i>Q</i> test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 10 studies (1629 patients) were included. There was no statistical significance between PG and PJ regarding the rate of clinically significant POPF (OR: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.46-1.06). PG was associated with a higher rate of postpancreatoduodenectomy haemorrhage (PPH) (OR: 1.52, 95%CI: 1.08-2.14). There was no difference between the two techniques in terms of clinically significant PPH (OR: 1.35, 95%CI: 0.95-1.93) and clinically significant postoperative delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (OR: 0.98, 95%CI: 0.59-1.63).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>There is no difference between the two anastomotic techniques regarding the rate of clinically significant POPF. Given several limitations, more large scale high quality RCTs are required.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45960,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Surgical Oncology\",\"volume\":\"2017 \",\"pages\":\"7526494\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2017/7526494\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Surgical Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7526494\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/7/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7526494","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/7/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

背景:一项荟萃分析旨在比较胰十二指肠切除术(PD)后胰胃吻合术(PG)和胰空肠吻合术(PJ)在临床上显著的术后胰瘘(POPF)和其他术后并发症方面的最新情况。方法:本荟萃分析依据PRISMA指南和Cochrane干预措施系统评价手册进行。在MEDLINE和Cochrane对照临床试验中央注册库中进行了系统的文献检索。采用固定效应或随机效应模型,基于Cochran Q检验。结果:共纳入10项研究(1629例患者)。PG组与PJ组临床显著性POPF发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(OR: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.46 ~ 1.06)。PG与胰十二指肠切除术后出血(PPH)发生率较高相关(OR: 1.52, 95%CI: 1.08-2.14)。两种方法在临床显著的PPH (OR: 1.35, 95%CI: 0.95-1.93)和临床显著的术后胃排空延迟(DGE) (OR: 0.98, 95%CI: 0.59-1.63)方面无差异。讨论:两种吻合技术在临床上显著的POPF发生率方面没有差异。考虑到一些限制,需要更多的大规模高质量随机对照试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Pancreatogastrostomy versus Pancreatojejunostomy: An Up-to-Date Meta-Analysis of RCTs.

Pancreatogastrostomy versus Pancreatojejunostomy: An Up-to-Date Meta-Analysis of RCTs.

Pancreatogastrostomy versus Pancreatojejunostomy: An Up-to-Date Meta-Analysis of RCTs.

Pancreatogastrostomy versus Pancreatojejunostomy: An Up-to-Date Meta-Analysis of RCTs.

Background: A meta-analysis was conducted in order to provide an up-to-date comparison of pancreatogastrostomy (PG) and pancreatojejunostomy (PJ), after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), in terms of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and other postoperative complications.

Methods: This meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials was performed. Fixed Effects or Random Effects model was used, based on the Cochran Q test.

Results: In total, 10 studies (1629 patients) were included. There was no statistical significance between PG and PJ regarding the rate of clinically significant POPF (OR: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.46-1.06). PG was associated with a higher rate of postpancreatoduodenectomy haemorrhage (PPH) (OR: 1.52, 95%CI: 1.08-2.14). There was no difference between the two techniques in terms of clinically significant PPH (OR: 1.35, 95%CI: 0.95-1.93) and clinically significant postoperative delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (OR: 0.98, 95%CI: 0.59-1.63).

Discussion: There is no difference between the two anastomotic techniques regarding the rate of clinically significant POPF. Given several limitations, more large scale high quality RCTs are required.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Surgical Oncology is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of surgical oncology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信