Systematic review of functional outcome and quality of life after total pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Surgeons have traditionally been reluctant to perform total pancreatectomy because of concerns for brittle diabetes and poor quality of life (QoL). Several recent studies have suggested that outcomes following total pancreatectomy have improved, but a systematic review is lacking.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken of studies reporting on outcomes after total pancreatectomy for all indications, except chronic pancreatitis. PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), and Cochrane Library were searched (2005-2018). Endpoints included functional outcome and QoL.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies, including 1536 patients, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. During a median follow-up of 20·8 (range 1·5-96·0) months, 18·6 per cent (45 of 242 patients) were readmitted for endocrine-related morbidity, with associated mortality in 1·6 per cent (6 of 365 patients). No diabetes-related mortality was reported in studies including only patients treated after 2005. Symptoms related to exocrine insufficiency were reported by 43·5 per cent (143 of 329 patients) during a median follow-up of 15·9 (1·5-96·0) months. Overall QoL, reported by 102 patients with a median follow-up of 28·6 (6·0-66·0) months, using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, showed a moderately reduced summary score of 76 per cent, compared with a general population score of 86 per cent (P = 0·004).

CONCLUSION

Overall QoL after total pancreatectomy is affected adversely, in particular by the considerable impact of diarrhoea that requires better treatment. There is also room for improvement in the management of diabetes after total pancreatectomy, particularly with regards to prevention of diabetes-related morbidity.

Variation in pancreatoduodenectomy as delivered in two national audits

Background

Nationwide audits facilitate quality and outcome assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy. Differences may exist between countries but studies comparing nationwide outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy based on audits are lacking. This study aimed to compare the German and Dutch audits for external data validation.

Methods

Anonymized data from patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy between 2014 and 2016 were extracted from the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery StuDoQ|Pancreas and Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit, and compared using descriptive statistics. Univariable and multivariable risk analyses were undertaken.

Results

Overall, 4495 patients were included, 2489 in Germany and 2006 in the Netherlands. Adenocarcinoma was a more frequent indication for pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. German patients had worse ASA fitness grades, but Dutch patients had more pulmonary co-morbidity. Dutch patients underwent more minimally invasive surgery and venous resections, but fewer multivisceral resections. No difference was found in rates of grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, grade C postpancreatectomy haemorrhage and in-hospital mortality. There was more centralization in the Netherlands (1·3 versus 13·3 per cent of pancreatoduodenectomies in very low-volume centres; P < 0·001). In multivariable analysis, both hospital stay (difference 2·49 (95 per cent c.i. 1·18 to 3·80) days) and risk of reoperation (odds ratio (OR) 1·55, 95 per cent c.i. 1·22 to 1·97) were higher in the German audit, whereas risk of postoperative pneumonia (OR 0·57, 0·37 to 0·88) and readmission (OR 0·38, 0·30 to 0·49) were lower. Several baseline and surgical characteristics, including hospital volume, but not country, predicted mortality.

Conclusion

This comparison of the German and Dutch audits showed variation in case mix, surgical technique and centralization for pancreatoduodenectomy, but no difference in mortality and pancreas-specific complications.