Skip to main content
Log in

Mortality and postoperative complications after different types of surgical reconstruction following pancreaticoduodenectomy—a systematic review with meta-analysis

  • Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Pancreaticoduodenectomy/PD is a technically demanding pancreatic resection. Options of surgical reconstruction include (1) the child reconstruction defined as pancreatojejunostomy/PJ followed by hepaticojejunostomy/HJ and the gastrojejunostomy/GJ “the standard/s-Child,” (2) the s-child reconstruction with an additional Braun enteroenterostomy “BE-Child,” or (3) Isolated-Roux-En-Y-pancreaticojejunostomy “Iso-Roux-En-Y,” in which the pancreas anastomosis is reconstructed in a separate loop after the GJ. Yet, the impact of these reconstruction methods on patients’ outcome has not been sufficiently compared in a systematic manner.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the Preferred-Reporting-Items-for-Systematic-review-and-Meta-Analysis/PRISMA-guidelines by screening Pubmed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web-of-Science. Articles meeting predefined criteria were extracted and meta-analysis was performed.

Results

Nineteen studies were identified comparing BE-Child or Isolated-Roux-En-Y vs. s-Child. Compared to s-Child neither BE-Child (p = 0.43) nor Iso-Roux-En-Y (p = 0.94) displayed an impact on postoperative mortality, whereas BE-Child showed less postoperative complications (p = 0.02). BE-Child (p = 0.15) and Iso-Roux-En-Y (p = 0.61) did not affect postoperative pancreatic fistula/POPF in general, but BE-Child was associated with a decrease of clinically relevant POPF (p = 0.005), clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying/DGE B/C (p = 0.004), bile leaks (p = 0.01), and hospital stay (p = 0.06). BE-Child entailed also an increased operation time (p = 0.0002) with no impact on DGE A/B/C, hemorrhage, surgical site infections and pulmonary complications.

Conclusion

BE-Child is associated with a decreased risk for postoperative complications, particularly a decreased risk for clinically relevant DGE, POPF, and bile leaks, whereas Iso-Roux-En-Y does not seem to affect the clinical course after PD. Therefore, BE seems to be a valuable surgical method to improve patients’ outcome after PD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cameron JL, Pitt HA, Yeo CJ, Lillemoe KD, Kaufman HS, Coleman J (1993) One hundred and forty-five consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies without mortality. Ann Surg 217(5):430–435 discussion 435–438

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Sohn TA, Lillemoe KD, Pitt HA, Talamini MA, Hruban RH, Ord SE, Sauter PK, Coleman J, Zahurak ML, Grochow LB, Abrams RA (1997) Six hundred fifty consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies in the 1990s: pathology, complications, and outcomes. Ann Surg 226(3):248–257 discussion 257–260

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Kanhere HA, Trochsler MI, Kanhere MH, Lord AN, Maddern GJ (2014) Pancreaticoduodenectomy: outcomes in a low-volume, specialised Hepato Pancreato Biliary unit. World J Surg 38(6):1484–1490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2431-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Topal B, Fieuws S, Aerts R, Weerts J, Feryn T, Roeyen G, Bertrand C, Hubert C, Janssens M, Closset J, Belgian Section of H, Pancreatic S (2013) Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 14(7):655–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70126-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kung SP, Lui WY, P'Eng FK (1995) An analysis of the possible factors contributing to the delayed return of gastric emptying after gastrojejunostomy. Surg Today 25(10):911–915

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bemelman WA, Taat CW, Slors JF, van Lanschot JJ, Obertop H (1995) Delayed postoperative emptying after esophageal resection is dependent on the size of the gastric substitute. J Am Coll Surg 180(4):461–464

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Burt M, Scott A, Williard WC, Pommier R, Yeh S, Bains MS, Turnbull AD, Fortner JG, McCormack PM, Ginsberg RJ (1996) Erythromycin stimulates gastric emptying after esophagectomy with gastric replacement: a randomized clinical trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 111(3):649–654

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bar-Natan M, Larson GM, Stephens G, Massey T (1996) Delayed gastric emptying after gastric surgery. Am J Surg 172(1):24–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(96)00048-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chang TM, Chen TH, Tsou SS, Liu YC, Shen KL (1999) Differences in gastric emptying between highly selective vagotomy and posterior truncal vagotomy combined with anterior seromyotomy. J Gastrointest Surg 3(5):533–536

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee HS, Kim MS, Lee JM, Kim SK, Kang KW, Zo JI (2005) Intrathoracic gastric emptying of solid food after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 80(2):443–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.02.049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dong K, Yu XJ, Li B, Wen EG, Xiong W, Guan QL (2006) Advances in mechanisms of postsurgical gastroparesis syndrome and its diagnosis and treatment. Chin J Dig Dis 7(2):76–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1443-9573.2006.00255.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tanaka M (2005) Gastroparesis after a pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Today 35(5):345–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-004-2961-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rayar M, Sulpice L, Meunier B, Boudjema K (2012) Enteral nutrition reduces delayed gastric emptying after standard pancreaticoduodenectomy with child reconstruction. J Gastrointest Surg 16(5):1004–1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-1821-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sakamoto Y, Yamamoto Y, Hata S, Nara S, Esaki M, Sano T, Shimada K, Kosuge T (2011) Analysis of risk factors for delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after 387 pancreaticoduodenectomies with usage of 70 stapled reconstructions. J Gastrointest Surg 15(10):1789–1797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-011-1498-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bassi C, Falconi M, Molinari E, Salvia R, Butturini G, Sartori N, Mantovani W, Pederzoli P (2005) Reconstruction by pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy following pancreatectomy: results of a comparative study. Ann Surg 242(6):767–771 discussion 771–763

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R, Rahbari NN, Adam R, Capussotti L, Fan ST, Yokoyama Y, Crawford M, Makuuchi M, Christophi C, Banting S, Brooke-Smith M, Usatoff V, Nagino M, Maddern G, Hugh TJ, Vauthey JN, Greig P, Rees M, Nimura Y, Figueras J, DeMatteo RP, Buchler MW, Weitz J (2011) Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery 149 (5):680–688. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2010.12.002

  17. Lacy BE, Crowell MD, Mathis C, Bauer D, Heinberg LJ (2016) Gastroparesis: quality of life and health care utilization. J Clin Gastroenterol:1. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000000728

  18. Miller BC, Christein JD, Behrman SW, Callery MP, Drebin JA, Kent TS, Pratt WB, Lewis RS Jr, Vollmer CM Jr (2013) Assessing the impact of a fistula after a pancreaticoduodenectomy using the post-operative morbidity index. HPB (Oxford) 15(10):781–788. https://doi.org/10.1111/hpb.12131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, Chaikof EL, Vollmer CM, Jr. (2013) A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216 (1):1–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.09.002

  20. Smits FJ, van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, Batenburg MC, Slooff RA, Boerma D, Busch OR, Coene PP, van Dam RM, van Dijk DP, van Eijck CH, Festen S, van der Harst E, de Hingh IH, de Jong KP, Tol JA, Borel Rinkes IH, Molenaar IQ, Dutch Pancreatic Cancer G (2017) Management of severe pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. JAMA Surg 152:540–548. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5708

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M, Allen P, Andersson R, Asbun HJ, Besselink MG, Conlon K, Del Chiaro M, Falconi M, Fernandez-Cruz L, Fernandez-Del Castillo C, Fingerhut A, Friess H, Gouma DJ, Hackert T, Izbicki J, Lillemoe KD, Neoptolemos JP, Olah A, Schulick R, Shrikhande SV, Takada T, Takaori K, Traverso W, Vollmer CR, Wolfgang CL, Yeo CJ, Salvia R, Buchler M, International Study Group on Pancreatic S (2017) The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161(3):584–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pratt WB, Callery MP, Vollmer CM, Jr. (2008) Risk prediction for development of pancreatic fistula using the ISGPF classification scheme. World J Surg 32 (3):419–428. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-007-9388-5

  23. Pratt WB, Maithel SK, Vanounou T, Huang ZS, Callery MP, Vollmer CM, Jr. (2007) Clinical and economic validation of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) classification scheme. Ann Surg 245 (3):443–451. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000251708.70219.d2

  24. Child CG (1944) Pancreaticojejunostomy and other problems associated with the surgical management of carcinoma involving the head of the pancreas: report of five additional cases of radical pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 119(6):845–855

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Hochwald SN, Grobmyer SR, Hemming AW, Curran E, Bloom DA, Delano M, Behrns KE, Copeland EM, Vogel SB (2010) Braun enteroenterostomy is associated with reduced delayed gastric emptying and early resumption of oral feeding following pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Surg Oncol 101(5):351–355. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hwang HK, Lee SH, Han DH, Choi SH, Kang CM, Lee WJ (2016) Impact of Braun anastomosis on reducing delayed gastric emptying following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 23(6):364–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Klaiber U, Probst P, Knebel P, Contin P, Diener MK, Buchler MW, Hackert T (2015) Meta-analysis of complication rates for single-loop versus dual-loop (Roux-En-Y) with isolated pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 102(4):331–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9703

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Huang MQ, Li M, Mao JY, Tian BL (2015) Braun enteroenterostomy reduces delayed gastric emptying: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 23(Pt A):75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.09.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fujieda H, Yokoyama Y, Hirata A, Usui H, Sakatoku Y, Fukaya M, Nagino M (2017) Does Braun anastomosis have an impact on the incidence of delayed gastric emptying and the extent of intragastric bile reflux following pancreatoduodenectomy? - a randomized controlled study. Dig Surg 34:462–468. https://doi.org/10.1159/000455334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kakaei F, Beheshtirouy S, Nejatollahi SM, Rashidi I, Asvadi T, Habibzadeh A, Oliaei-Motlagh M (2015) Effects of adding Braun jejunojejunostomy to standard Whipple procedure on reduction of afferent loop syndrome - a randomized clinical trial. Can J Surg 58(6):383–388

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, Neoptolemos J, Sarr M, Traverso W, Buchler M, International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula D (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138(1):8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2005.05.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR, Neoptolemos JP, Padbury RT, Sarr MG, Traverso LW, Yeo CJ, Buchler MW (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142(5):761–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.05.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8 (5):336–341. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007

  34. Goossen K, Tenckhoff S, Probst P, Grummich K, Mihaljevic AL, Buchler MW, Diener MK (2018) Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 403(1):119–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-017-1646-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Grobmyer SR, Hollenbeck ST, Jaques DP, Jarnagin WR, DeMatteo R, Coit DG, Blumgart LH, Brennan MF, Fong Y (2008) Roux-En-Y reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Arch Surg 143(12):1184–1188. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2008.501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, Carpenter JR, Chan AW, Churchill R, Deeks JJ, Hrobjartsson A, Kirkham J, Juni P, Loke YK, Pigott TD, Ramsay CR, Regidor D, Rothstein HR, Sandhu L, Santaguida PL, Schunemann HJ, Shea B, Shrier I, Tugwell P, Turner L, Valentine JC, Waddington H, Waters E, Wells GA, Whiting PF, Higgins JP (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Higgins J, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration

  38. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Meng HB, Zhou B, Wu F, Xu J, Song ZS, Gong J, Khondaker M, Xu B (2015) Continuous suture of the pancreatic stump and Braun enteroenterostomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol 21(9):2731–2738. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i9.2731

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Nikfarjam M, Houli N, Tufail F, Weinberg L, Muralidharan V, Christophi C (2012) Reduction in delayed gastric emptying following non-pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy by addition of a Braun enteroenterostomy. JOP 13(5):488–496. https://doi.org/10.6092/1590-8577/800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Cordesmeyer S, Lodde S, Zeden K, Kabar I, Hoffmann MW (2014) Prevention of delayed gastric emptying after pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy with antecolic reconstruction, a long jejunal loop, and a jejuno-jejunostomy. J Gastrointest Surg 18(4):662–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-013-2446-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hu BY, Wan T, Zhang WZ, Dong JH (2016) Risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula: analysis of 539 successive cases of pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol 22(34):7797–7805. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i34.7797

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Liu QY, Li L, Xia HT, Zhang WZ, Cai SW, Lu SC (2016) Risk factors of delayed gastric emptying following pancreaticoduodenectomy. ANZ J Surg 86(1–2):69–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.12850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wang L, Su A, Zhang Y, Yang M, Yue P, Tian B (2014) Reduction of alkaline reflux gastritis and marginal ulcer by modified Braun enteroenterostomy in gastroenterologic reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Surg Res 189(1):41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2014.01.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Watanabe Y, Ohtsuka T, Kimura H, Matsunaga T, Tamura K, Ideno N, Aso T, Miyasaka Y, Ueda J, Takahata S, Tanaka M (2015) Braun enteroenterostomy reduces delayed gastric emptying after pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy: a retrospective review. Am J Surg 209(2):369–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.05.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Xu B, Meng H, Qian M, Gu H, Zhou B, Song Z (2015) Braun enteroenterostomy during pancreaticoduodenectomy decreases postoperative delayed gastric emptying. Am J Surg 209(6):1036–1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.06.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang XF, Yin GZ, Liu QG, Liu XM, Wang B, Yu L, Liu SN, Cui HY, Lv Y (2014) Does Braun enteroenterostomy reduce delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy? Medicine (Baltimore) 93(7):e48. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000000048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ke S, Ding XM, Gao J, Zhao AM, Deng GY, Ma RL, Xin ZH, Ning CM, Sun WB (2013) A prospective, randomized trial of Roux-En-Y reconstruction with isolated pancreatic drainage versus conventional loop reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery 153(6):743–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2013.02.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Tani M, Kawai M, Hirono S, Okada KI, Miyazawa M, Shimizu A, Kitahata Y, Yamaue H (2014) Randomized clinical trial of isolated Roux-En-Y versus conventional reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 101(9):1084–1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9544

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ballas K (2010) Use of isolated roux loop for pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol 16(25):3178–3182. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v16.i25.3178

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Kaman L, Sanyal S, Behera A, Singh R, Katariya RN (2008) Isolated roux loop pancreaticojejunostomy vs single loop pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Int J Surg 6(4):306–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2008.04.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Perwaiz A, Singhal D, Singh A, Chaudhary A (2009) Is isolated Roux loop pancreaticojejunostomy superior to conventional reconstruction in pancreaticoduodenectomy? HPB (Oxford) 11(4):326–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-2574.2009.00051.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Huttner FJ, Fitzmaurice C, Schwarzer G, Seiler CM, Antes G, Buchler MW, Diener MK (2016) Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD006053. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Qin H, Luo L, Zhu Z, Huang J (2016) Pancreaticogastrostomy has advantages over pancreaticojejunostomy on pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 36(Pt A):18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.10.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Huttner FJ, Klotz R, Ulrich A, Buchler MW, Diener MK (2016) Antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD011862. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011862.pub2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hackert T, Probst P, Knebel P, Doerr-Harim C, Bruckner T, Klaiber U, Werner J, Schneider L, Michalski CW, Strobel O, Ulrich A, Diener MK, Buchler MW (2017) Pylorus resection does not reduce delayed gastric emptying after partial pancreatoduodenectomy: a blinded randomized controlled trial (PROPP Study, DRKS00004191). Ann Surg 267:1021–1027. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Schorn S, Nitsche U, Demir IE, Scheufele F, Tieftrunk E, Schirren R, Klauss S, Sargut M, Ceyhan GO, Friess H (2018) The impact of surgically placed, intraperitoneal drainage on morbidity and mortality after pancreas resection- a systematic review & meta-analysis. Pancreatology 18(3):334–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pan.2018.02.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Huttner FJ, Probst P, Knebel P, Strobel O, Hackert T, Ulrich A, Buchler MW, Diener MK (2017) Meta-analysis of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery. Br J Surg 104(6):660–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10505

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Dong Z, Xu J, Wang Z, Petrov MS (2016) Stents for the prevention of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5:CD008914. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008914.pub3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hua J, He Z, Qian D, Meng H, Zhou B, Song Z (2015) Duct-to-mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 19(10):1900–1909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-015-2913-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Han X, Xu Z, Cao S, Zhao Y, Wu W (2017) The effect of somatostatin analogues on postoperative outcomes following pancreatic surgery: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 12(12):e0188928. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188928

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Dr. John Moir (The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust) for his contributions and the corrections of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Study conception and design: SS, IED, DW, GOC, and HF. Acquisition of data: SS, IED, TV, RS, TV, LK, and DR. Analysis and interpretation of data: SS, IED, and DW. Drafting of manuscript: SS and IED. Critical revision of manuscript: SS, IED; TV, RS, DR, DW, HF, and GOC.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helmut Friess.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

For this type of study, formal consent is not required. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Fig. 1a-f

Sensitivity analysis of patients’ age and gender for postoperative complications, clinically relevant POPF and DGE of meta-analysis comparing BE-Child vs. s-Child. Studies, which provided sufficient information for the comparison of patients’ age and gender between BE-Child vs. s-Child, were eligible to be included in sensitivity analysis of postoperative complications, clinically relevant POPF and clinically relevant DGE. Only meta-analysis including more than 1 study were performed. Data were pooled using the Mantel–Haenszel random effects models and expressed as risk ratio with their corresponding 95%-CI and p value. M-H: Mantel–Haenszel model; CI: confidence interval (PNG 3388 kb)

High Resolution Image (TIF 17649 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 2a-d

Sensitivity analysis of patients’ BMI and histology for postoperative complications, clinically relevant POPF and DGE of meta-analysis comparing BE-Child vs. s-Child. Studies, which provided sufficient information for the comparison of patients’ BMI and histology between BEChild vs. s-Child, were eligible to be included in sensitivity analysis of postoperative complications, clinically relevant POPF and clinically relevant DGE. Only meta-analysis including more than 1 study were performed. Data were pooled using the Mantel–Haenszel random effects models and expressed as risk ratio with their corresponding 95%-CI and p value. M-H: Mantel–Haenszel model; CI: confidence interval (PNG 2250 kb)

High Resolution Image (TIF 12558 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 3a-g

Sensitivity analysis of pancreatic duct diameter, pancreas texture and type of anastomosis for postoperative complications, clinically relevant POPF and DGE of meta-analysis comparing BE-Child vs. s-Child. Studies, which provided sufficient information for the comparison of the mean pancreatic duct diameter, pancreatic duct diameter < 3 mm, soft pancreatic tissue and type of anastomosis of the pancreaticojejunostomy between BEChild vs. s-Child, were eligible to be included in sensitivity analysis of postoperative complications, clinically relevant POPF and clinically relevant DGE. Only meta-analysis including more than 1 study were performed. Data were pooled using the Mantel–Haenszel random effects models and expressed as risk ratio with their corresponding 95%-CI and p value. M-H: Mantel–Haenszel model; CI: confidence interval (PNG 3362 kb)

High Resolution Image (TIF 17358 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 4a-c

Sensitivity analysis of age, BMI, biliary stenting, pancreatic duct diameter, pancreas texture, pathology and type of anastomosis for postoperative complications, clinically relevant POPF and DGE of meta-analysis comparing Iso-Roux-En-Y vs. s-Child. Studies, which provided sufficient information for patients’ age, BMI, biliary stenting, pancreatic duct diameter, pancreas texture, pathology and the type of anastomosis of the pancreaticojejunostomy between Iso-Roux-En-Y vs. s-Child, were eligible to be included in sensitivity analysis of postoperative complications, clinically relevant POPF and clinically relevant DGE. Only meta-analysis including more than 1 study were performed. Data were pooled using the Mantel–Haenszel random effects models and expressed as risk ratio with their corresponding 95%-CI and p value. M-H: Mantel–Haenszel model; CI: confidence interval (PNG 4064 kb)

High Resolution Image (TIF 20835 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 5

BE as an independent protective factor for DGE. Multivariate odds ratio were extracted and pooled in meta-analyses using the Inverse Variance random effects model with their corresponding 95%-CI and p values. DGE: delayed gastric emptying; IV: inverse variance model; CI: confidence interval (PNG 748 kb)

High Resolution Image (TIF 10808 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 6a-b

The effect of BE on mortality and postoperative complications in patients after PD and PPPD. Forrest plot of quantitative data comparing the incidence of mortality (a.) and postoperative complications (b.) between patients with BE-Child and s-Child. In this meta-analysis subgroup were introduced depending on PPPD or PD were performed. Data were pooled using the Mantel–Haenszel random effects models and expressed as risk ratio with their corresponding 95%-CI and p value. M-H: Mantel–Haenszel model; CI: confidence interval, PD: pancreaticoduodenectomy; PPPD: pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PNG 1392 kb)

High Resolution Image (TIF 17237 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 7

The effect of BE on POPF and DGE in patients after PD and PPPD. Forest plot of all kind of POPF (a.) and clinically relevant POPF according to ISGPS (b.) in patients after BEChild or s-Child depending on a PD or PPPD were performed. Data of DGE (c.) and clinically relevant DGE according to ISGPS (d) were pooled in comparative meta-analysis with patients undergoing BE-Child or s-Child. All data were pooled as risk ratio with their corresponding 95%-CI and p value using the Mantel–Haenszel model for random effects. POPF: postoperative pancreatic fistula; DGE; delayed gastric emptying; ISPGS: International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery; M-H: Mantel–Haenszel model; CI: confidence interval, PD: pancreaticoduodenectomy; PPPD: pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PNG 3768 kb)

High Resolution Image (TIF 19563 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 8

The effect of Iso-Roux-En-Y on mortality and postoperative complications in patients after PD and PPPD. Forrest plot of quantitative data comparing the incidence of mortality (a.) and postoperative complications (b.) between patients with Iso-Roux-En-Y and s-Child. In this meta-analysis subgroup were introduced depending on PPPD or PD were performed. Data were pooled using the Mantel–Haenszel random effects models and expressed as risk ratio with their corresponding 95%-CI and p value. M-H: Mantel–Haenszel model; CI: confidence interval, PD: pancreaticoduodenectomy; PPPD: pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PNG 1395 kb)

High Resolution Image (TIF 17531 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 9

The effect of Iso-Roux-En-Y on POPF and DGE in patients after PD and PPPD. Forest plot of all kind of POPF (a.) and clinically relevant POPF according to ISGPS (b.) in patients after Iso- Roux-En-Y or s-Child depending on a PD or PPPD were performed. Data of DGE (c.) and clinically relevant DGE according to ISGPS (d) were pooled in comparative meta-analysis with patients undergoing Iso-Roux-En-Y or s- Child. All data were pooled as risk ratio with their corresponding 95%-CI and p value using the Mantel–Haenszel model for random effects. POPF: postoperative pancreatic fistula; DGE; delayed gastric emptying; ISPGS: International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery; M-H: Mantel–Haenszel model; CI: confidence interval, PD: pancreaticoduodenectomy; PPPD: pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PNG 3434 kb)

High Resolution Image (TIF 18101 kb)

Supplemental Figure 10

Publication bias. According to the recommendation of the Cochrane Network, publication bias was analyzed in each meta-analysis containing at least 10 studies. Here, the Funnel plot as well as the Egger’s test could not detect any publication bias in the meta-analysis comparing postoperative mortality between BE-Child vs. Iso-Roux-En-Y. (PNG 384 kb)

High Resolution Image (TIF 7131 kb)

ESM 1

(DOCX 210 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schorn, S., Demir, I.E., Vogel, T. et al. Mortality and postoperative complications after different types of surgical reconstruction following pancreaticoduodenectomy—a systematic review with meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 404, 141–157 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-019-01762-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-019-01762-5

Keywords

Navigation