Should we consider pancreaticogastrostomy the best method of reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy?

Retrospective Comparative Analysis of POPF Using Fistula Risk Score According to Pancreaticoenterostomy Method

Background

The aim of this study is to examine whether pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) or pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) is the better reconstructive method to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) according to the fistula risk.

Methods

An institutional database was reviewed for patients undergoing PD between January 2008 and August 2019. A total of 159 patients were stratified into 4 groups according to the Clinical Risk Score-Pancreatic Fistula. POPF according to 4 risk groups was compared between PJ and PG.

Results

Of the 159 patients, 82 underwent PG (51.6%) and 77 underwent PJ (48.4%) reconstruction. POPF rate was 17.1% (n = 14) in the PG group and 12.9% (n = 10) in the PJ group (P = 0.51). POPF rates were not different in intermediate, low, and negligible risks between 2 reconstructive methods. In the high-risk group (n = 47), there were 4 POPFs (22.2%) in PJ group and 9 (31.0%) in the PG group, respectively (P = 0.74).

Conclusion

In PD, there was no superior method of reconstruction with regard to POPF, even in high-risk glands.

Is pancreaticogastrostomy safer than pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy? A meta-regression analysis of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinically relevant POPF rate between Pancreatogastrostomy (PG) and pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). To evaluate the confounding factors affecting meta-analytic results.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing PG to PJ with an International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat or harm (NNT and NNH) were used. Fixed and random-effect models were applied. Impact of confounding covariates on the meta-analytic results was evaluated using meta-regression analysis, reporting β coefficient ± standard error (SE).

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were identified involving 1184 patients: 603 PG and 581 PJ. RD in the fixed model of clinically relevant POPFs suggested that PG was superior to PJ (RD-0.07; 95% CI: -0.11 to -0.03) with an NNT of 14 (95% CI: 9 to 33). In random model, PG was not superior to PJ (RD-0.06; 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.01) with an NNT of 17 and a possibility of harm in some cases (NNH = 100). Meta-regression suggested that the increase in the proportion of "soft pancreas" in the PG arm corresponded to a more positive value of RD (β = 0.47 ± 0.19; P value: 0.045 ± 0.003).

CONCLUSION

A PG could be slightly superior to PJ in the prevention of clinically relevant POPF. The presence of high risk pancreatic remnant remains the main limitation of PG.