Hepatobiliary and pancreatic: traumatic neuroma of the ampulla of Vater

Epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment of intra-abdominal traumatic neuromas - a narrative review

Traumatic neuroma (TN) is a disorganized proliferation of injured nerves arising from the axons and Schwann cells. Although TN rarely occurs in the abdominal cavity, the incidence of TN may be underestimated because of the large number of asymptomatic patients. TN can cause persistent pain, which seriously affects quality of life. TN of the biliary system can cause bile duct obstruction, leading to acute cholangitis. It is difficult to differentiate TN from malignancies or recurrence of malignancy, which results in a number of patients receiving aggressive treatment. We collected cases reports of intra-abdominal TN over the past 30 years form PubMed and cases diagnosed in our medical center over the past 20 years, which is the largest case series of intra-abdominal TN to the best of our knowledge. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk factors, classification, diagnosis, and management of intra-abdominal TN.

Fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic surgery. Fibrin sealants have been used in some centres to reduce POPF rate. However, the use of fibrin sealant during pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of fibrin sealant use for the prevention of POPF (grade B or C) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery compared to no fibrin sealant use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and five trials registers on 09 March 2023, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fibrin sealant (fibrin glue or fibrin sealant patch) versus control (no fibrin sealant or placebo) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs, randomising 1989 participants, comparing fibrin sealant use versus no fibrin sealant use for different locations: stump closure reinforcement (eight trials), pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement (five trials), or main pancreatic duct occlusion (two trials). Six RCTs were carried out in single centres; two in dual centres; and six in multiple centres. One RCT was conducted in Australia; one in Austria; two in France; three in Italy; one in Japan; two in the Netherlands; two in South Korea; and two in the USA. The mean age of the participants ranged from 50.0 years to 66.5 years. All RCTs were at high risk of bias. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic stump closure reinforcement after distal pancreatectomy We included eight RCTs involving 1119 participants: 559 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 560 to the control group after distal pancreatectomy. Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the rate of POPF (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.21; 5 studies, 1002 participants; low-certainty evidence) and overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.48; 4 studies, 893 participants; low-certainty evidence). After fibrin sealant use, approximately 199 people (155 to 256 people) out of 1000 developed POPF compared with 212 people out of 1000 when no fibrin sealant was used. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1051 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and total length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.99 days, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.82; 2 studies, 371 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Fibrin sealant use may reduce the reoperation rate slightly (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.90; 3 studies, 623 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in five studies (732 participants), and there were no serious adverse events related to fibrin sealant use (low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report quality of life or cost-effectiveness. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement after pancreaticoduodenectomy We included five RCTs involving 519 participants: 248 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 271 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on the rate of POPF (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.48; 3 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (Peto OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.06; 5 studies, 517 participants; very low-certainty evidence), reoperation rate (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.66; 3 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and total hospital cost (MD -1489.00 US dollars, 95% CI -3256.08 to 278.08; 1 study, 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). After fibrin sealant use, approximately 130 people (70 to 240 people) out of 1000 developed POPF compared with 97 people out of 1000 when no fibrin sealant was used. Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference both in overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19; 4 studies, 447 participants; low-certainty evidence) and in total length of hospital stay (MD -0.33 days, 95% CI -2.30 to 1.63; 4 studies, 447 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in two studies (194 participants), and there were no serious adverse events related to fibrin sealant use (very low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report quality of life. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic duct occlusion after pancreaticoduodenectomy We included two RCTs involving 351 participants: 188 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 163 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality (Peto OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.13; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.02; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and reoperation rate (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the total length of hospital stay (median 16 to 17 days versus 17 days; 2 studies, 351 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in one study (169 participants; low-certainty evidence): more participants developed diabetes mellitus when fibrin sealants were applied to pancreatic duct occlusion, both at three months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 10.8% control group; 29 participants versus 9 participants) and 12 months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 14.5% control group; 29 participants versus 12 participants). The studies did not report POPF, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current available evidence, fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the rate of POPF in people undergoing distal pancreatectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on the rate of POPF in people undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. The effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality is uncertain in people undergoing either distal pancreatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of a traumatic neuroma of the extrahepatic bile duct: A case report and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Traumatic neuromas result from nerve injury after trauma or surgery but rarely occur in the bile duct. However, it is challenging to diagnose traumatic neuromas correctly preoperatively. Although some previous reports have described the imaging features of traumatic neuroma in the bile duct, no features of traumatic neuromas in the bile duct have been identified by using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) imaging before.

CASE SUMMARY

A 55-year-old male patient presented to our hospital with a 3-mo history of abdominal distension and anorexia and history of cholecystectomy 4 years ago. Grayscale ultrasound demonstrated mild to moderate intrahepatic bile duct dilatation. Meanwhile, a hyperechoic nodule was found in the upper extrahepatic bile duct. The lesion approximately 0.8 cm × 0.6 cm with a regular shape and clear margins. The nodule of the bile duct showed slight hyperenhancement in the arterial phase and isoenhancement in the venous phase on CEUS. Laboratory tests showed that alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase were increased significantly, while the tumor marker carbohydrate antigen 19-9 was increased slightly. Then, hilar bile duct resection and end-to-end bile ductal anastomosis were performed. The histological examination revealed traumatic neuroma of the extrahepatic bile duct. The patient had an uneventful recovery after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The current report will help enhance the current knowledge regarding identifying traumatic neuromas by CEUS imaging and review the related literature.

Case Report: Idiopathic Traumatic Neuroma of the Gallbladder Without Previous Surgery

Traumatic neuroma mostly results from nerve injury caused by surgery or trauma. Traumatic neuroma of the gallbladder without prior abdominal surgery is extremely rare, and we termed it “idiopathic traumatic neuroma of the gallbladder.” Due to its rarity and a lack of specific clinical and radiological features, it is most commonly misdiagnosed. In our case, the patient was admitted to our hospital for cholangiocarcinoma. Repeated abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans preoperatively indicated hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Due to insufficient future liver remnant, we planned preoperative percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage and percutaneous transhepatic portal vein embolization based on multidisciplinary team consultation. The patient was then admitted 1 month later for surgery. We performed a laparoscopic cholecystectomy and an extensive laparoscopic right hepatectomy as gallbladder carcinoma was strongly suspected intraoperatively. However, the final diagnosis was traumatic neuroma of the gallbladder confirmed by pathological examination. Traumatic neuroma of the gallbladder is very rare, and we hope to provide some references for diagnosis by reporting our case and reviewing the literature on this topic so that extensive treatment can be avoided, thus improving patients’ quality of life. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case of traumatic neuroma without prior surgery in the English literature since 1996.

Duct-to-mucosa versus other types of pancreaticojejunostomy for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is a common and serious complication following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy has been used in many centers to reconstruct pancreatic digestive continuity following pancreatoduodenectomy, however, its efficacy and safety are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy versus other types of pancreaticojejunostomy for the reconstruction of pancreatic digestive continuity in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, and to compare the effects of different duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy techniques.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (2021, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to 9 January 2021), Embase (1988 to 9 January 2021), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1982 to 9 January 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy with other types of pancreaticojejunostomy (e.g. invagination pancreaticojejunostomy, binding pancreaticojejunostomy) in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. We also included RCTs that compared different types of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs involving a total of 1696 participants in the review. One RCT was a dual-center study; the other 10 RCTs were single-center studies conducted in: China (4 studies); Japan (2 studies); USA (1 study); Egypt (1 study); Germany (1 study); India (1 study); and Italy (1 study). The mean age of participants ranged from 54 to 68 years. All RCTs were at high risk of bias. Duct-to-mucosa versus any other type of pancreaticojejunostomy We included 10 RCTs involving 1472 participants comparing duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy with invagination pancreaticojejunostomy: 732 participants were randomized to the duct-to-mucosa group, and 740 participants were randomized to the invagination group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Comparing the two techniques, the evidence is very uncertain for the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C; RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.26; 7 studies, 1122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49; 10 studies, 1472 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of surgical reintervention (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.95; 10 studies, 1472 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of postoperative bleeding (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.42; 9 studies, 1275 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall rate of surgical complications (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; 5 studies, 750 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.41 days, 95% CI -1.87 to 1.04; 4 studies, 658 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report adverse events or quality of life outcomes. One type of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy versus a different type of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy We included one RCT involving 224 participants comparing duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique with duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique: 112 participants were randomized to the modified Blumgart group, and 112 participants were randomized to the traditional interrupted group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Comparing the two techniques, the evidence is very uncertain for the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C; RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.75; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (there were no deaths in either group; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of surgical reintervention (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.18 to 20.91; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of postoperative bleeding (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.12 to 70.11; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall rate of surgical complications (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.51; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (15 days versus 15 days; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report adverse events or quality of life outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy compared to invagination pancreaticojejunostomy on any of the outcomes, including rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C), postoperative mortality, rate of surgical reintervention, rate of postoperative bleeding, overall rate of surgical complications, and length of hospital stay. The evidence is also very uncertain whether duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique is superior, equivalent or inferior to duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique. None of the studies reported adverse events or quality of life outcomes.

Fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic resections. Fibrin sealants have been used in some centers to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula. However, the use of fibrin sealants during pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects of fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched trial registers and the following biomedical databases: the Cochrane Library (2019, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1946 to 13 March2019), Embase (1980 to 11 March 2019), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 13 March 2019), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 13 March 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials that compared fibrin sealant (fibrin glue or fibrin sealant patch) versus control (no fibrin sealant or placebo) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or a Peto odds ratio (OR) for very rare outcomes), and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies involving 1604 participants in the review. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic stump closure reinforcement after distal pancreatectomy We included seven studies involving 860 participants: 428 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 432 to the control group after distal pancreatectomy. Fibrin sealants may lead to little or no difference in postoperative pancreatic fistula (fibrin sealant 19.3%; control 20.1%; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; 755 participants; four studies; low-quality evidence). Fibrin sealants may also lead to little or no difference in postoperative mortality (0.3% versus 0.5%; Peto OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.03; 804 participants; six studies; low-quality evidence), or overall postoperative morbidity (28.5% versus 23.2%; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.58; 646 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce reoperation rate (2.0% versus 3.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.71; 376 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.99 days, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.82; 371 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence). The studies did not report serious adverse events, quality of life, or cost effectiveness. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement after pancreaticoduodenectomy We included four studies involving 393 participants: 186 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 207 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula (16.7% versus 11.7%; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.69; 199 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce postoperative mortality (0.5% versus 2.4%; Peto OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.32; 393 participants; four studies; low-quality evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.01 days, 95% CI -3.91 to 3.94; 323 participants; three studies; very low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference in overall postoperative morbidity (52.6% versus 50.3%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.24; 323 participants; three studies; moderate-quality evidence) between the groups. We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce reoperation rate (5.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.66; 323 participants; three studies, very low-quality evidence). The studies did not report serious adverse events, quality of life, or cost effectiveness. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic duct occlusion after pancreaticoduodenectomy We included two studies involving 351 participants: 188 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 163 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Fibrin sealants may lead to little or no difference in postoperative mortality (8.4% versus 6.1%; Peto OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.13; 351 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence) or length of hospital stay (median 16 to 17 days versus 17 days; 351 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce overall postoperative morbidity (32.0% versus 27.6%; RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.02; 351 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence), or reoperation rate (13.6% versus 16.0%; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41; 351 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in one study (169 participants; low-quality evidence): more participants developed diabetes mellitus when fibrin sealants were applied to pancreatic duct occlusion, both at three months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 10.8% control group; 29 participants versus 9 participants) and 12 months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 14.5% control group; 29 participants versus 12 participants). The studies did not report postoperative pancreatic fistula, quality of life, or cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current available evidence, fibrin sealants may have little or no effect on postoperative pancreatic fistula in people undergoing distal pancreatectomy. The effects of fibrin sealants on the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula are uncertain in people undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic resections. Fibrin sealants are introduced to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula by some surgeons. However, the use of fibrin sealants during pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects of fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched trial registers and the following biomedical databases: the Cochrane Library (2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to 12 April 2018), Embase (1980 to 12 April 2018), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 12 April 2018), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 12 April 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that compared fibrin sealant (fibrin glue or fibrin sealant patch) versus control (no fibrin sealant or placebo) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or a Peto odds ratio (OR) for very rare outcomes), and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies involving 1462 participants in the review.Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic stump closure reinforcement after distal pancreatectomyWe included seven studies involving 860 participants: 428 were randomized to the fibrin sealant group and 432 to the control group after distal pancreatectomy. Fibrin sealants may lead to little or no difference in postoperative pancreatic fistula (fibrin sealant 19.3%; control 20.1%; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; 755 participants; four studies; low-quality evidence). Fibrin sealants may also lead to little or no difference in postoperative mortality (0.3% versus 0.5%; Peto OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.03; 804 participants; six studies; low-quality evidence), or overall postoperative morbidity (28.5% versus 23.2%; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.58; 646 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce reoperation rate (2.0% versus 3.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.71; 376 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference in length of hospital stay between the groups (12.1 days versus 11.4 days; MD 0.32 days, 95% CI -1.06 to 1.70; 755 participants; four studies; moderate-quality evidence). The studies did not report serious adverse events, quality of life, or cost effectiveness.Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement after pancreaticoduodenectomyWe included three studies involving 251 participants: 115 were randomized to the fibrin sealant group and 136 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula (1.6% versus 6.2%; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.06; 57 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Fibrin sealants may lead to little or no difference in postoperative mortality (0.1% versus 0.7%; Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 7.76; 251 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence) or length of hospital stay (12.8 days versus 14.8 days; MD -1.58 days, 95% CI -3.96 to 0.81; 181 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce overall postoperative morbidity (33.7% versus 34.7%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.45; 181 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence), or reoperation rate (7.6% versus 9.2%; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.11; 181 participants; two studies, very low-quality evidence). The studies did not report serious adverse events, quality of life, or cost effectiveness.Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic duct occlusion after pancreaticoduodenectomyWe included two studies involving 351 participants: 188 were randomized to the fibrin sealant group and 163 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Fibrin sealants may lead to little or no difference in postoperative mortality (8.4% versus 6.1%; Peto OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.13; 351 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence) or length of hospital stay (17.0 days versus 16.5 days; MD 0.58 days, 95% CI -5.74 to 6.89; 351 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether fibrin sealants reduce overall postoperative morbidity (32.0% versus 27.6%; RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.02; 351 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence), or reoperation rate (13.6% versus 16.0%; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41; 351 participants; two studies; very low-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in one study: more participants developed diabetes mellitus when fibrin sealants were applied to pancreatic duct occlusion, both at three months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 10.8% control group; 29 participants versus 9 participants) and 12 months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 14.5% control group; 29 participants versus 12 participants). The studies did not report postoperative pancreatic fistula, quality of life, or cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current available evidence, fibrin sealants may have little or no effect on postoperative pancreatic fistula in people undergoing distal pancreatectomy. The effects of fibrin sealants on the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula are uncertain in people undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

For the last version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 8), and MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) to 28 August 2016). For this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2016 to 15 November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled studies that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified six studies (1384 participants). Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Drain use versus no drain useWe included four studies with 1110 participants, who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. There was little or no difference in mortality at 30 days between groups (1.5% with drains versus 2.3% with no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Drain use probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days (0.8% versus 4.2%; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We were uncertain whether drain use reduced intra-abdominal infection (7.9% versus 8.2%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-quality evidence), or additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (10.9% versus 12.1%; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; three studies, 660 participants; very low-quality evidence). Drain use may lead to similar amount of wound infection (9.8% versus 9.9%; RR 0.98 , 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence), and additional open procedures for postoperative complications (9.4% versus 7.1%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with no drain use. There was little or no difference in morbidity (61.7% versus 59.7%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies, 711 participants; moderate-quality evidence) between groups. There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Health-related quality of life was measured with the pancreas-specific quality-of-life questionnaire (FACT-PA; a scale of 0 to 144 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Drain use may lead to similar quality of life scores, measured at 30 days after pancreatic surgery, when compared with no drain use (105 points versus 104 points; one study, 399 participants; low-quality evidence). Hospital costs and pain were not reported in any of the studies.Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants, who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. An active drain may lead to similar mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain; low-quality evidence), and morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15; low-quality evidence) when compared with a passive drain. We were uncertain whether an active drain decreased intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05; very low-quality evidence), or the number of additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29; very low-quality evidence). Active drain may reduce length of hospital stay slightly (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; one study; low-quality evidence; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay). Additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no mortality in either group. Early drain removal may slightly reduce morbidity (38.6% with early drain removal versus 61.4% with late drain removal; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93; low-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; low-quality evidence; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (MD -EUR 2069.00, 95% CI -3872.26 to -265.74; low-quality evidence; 17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs). We were uncertain whether early drain removal reduced additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% versus 1.8%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01; one study; very low-quality evidence). Intra-abdominal infection, wound infection, additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It was unclear whether routine abdominal drainage had any effect on the reduction of mortality at 30 days, or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that routine abdominal drainage probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days. Low-quality evidence suggested that use of an active drain compared to the use of a passive drain may slightly reduce the length of hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

For the initial version of this review, we searched the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 April 2015), Embase (1980 to 9 April 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 9 April 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 9 April 2015). For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2015 to 28 August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled trials that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified five trials (of 985 participants) which met our inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we employed the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Drain use versus no drain useWe included three trials involving 711 participants who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 358) and the no drainage group (N = 353) after pancreatic surgery. There was inadequate evidence to establish the effect of drains on mortality at 30 days (2.2% with drains versus 3.4% no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; three studies; low-quality evidence), mortality at 90 days (2.9% versus 11.6%; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.10; one study; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal infection (7.3% versus 8.5%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.20; three studies; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (12.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; three studies; low-quality evidence), morbidity (64.8% versus 62.0%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.16; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (11.5% versus 9.1%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.52; three studies). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.6%). Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain), intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05), morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29). The active drain group was associated with shorter length of hospital stay (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay) than in the passive drain group. The quality of evidence was low, or very low. Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (0% for both groups) or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% with early drain removal versus 1.8% with late drain removal; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01). The early drain removal group was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications (38.5% versus 61.4%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs) than in the late drain removal group. The quality of evidence for each of the outcomes was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the reduction of mortality and postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. In case of drain insertion, low-quality evidence suggests that active drainage may reduce hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic resections. Fibrin sealants are introduced to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula by some surgeons. However, the use of fibrin sealants during pancreatic surgery is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects of fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to 26 August 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 26 August 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 26 August 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 26 August 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that compared fibrin sealant group (fibrin glue or fibrin sealant patch) versus control group (no fibrin sealant or placebo) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or a Peto odds ratio for very rare outcomes), and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials involving 1095 participants who were randomized to the fibrin sealant group (N = 550) and the control group (N = 545) after pancreatic surgery. All of the trials were at high risk of bias. There was no evidence of differences in overall postoperative pancreatic fistula (fibrin sealant 29.6%; control 31.0%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21; P = 0.58; nine studies; low-quality evidence), postoperative mortality (3.1% versus 2.1%; Peto OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.82; P = 0.53; eight studies; very low-quality evidence), overall postoperative morbidity (29.6% versus 28.9%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.32; P = 0.77; five studies), reoperation rate (8.7% versus 10.7%; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.21; P = 0.29; five studies), or length of hospital stay (12.9 days versus 13.1 days; MD -0.73 days, 95% CI -2.20 to 0.74; P = 0.331; six studies) between the groups. The proportion of postoperative pancreatic fistula that was clinically significant was not mentioned in most trials. On inclusion of trials that clearly distinguished clinically significant fistulas, there was inadequate evidence to establish the effect of fibrin sealants on clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula (9.4% versus 13.4%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.21; P = 0.21; three studies). Quality of life and cost effectiveness were not reported in any of the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current available evidence, fibrin sealants do not seem to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.