Antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialized nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant lesions, partial pancreaticoduodenectomy represents the standard treatment for resectable tumours. The gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy can be reestablished via either an antecolic or a retrocolic route. The debate about the more favourable technique for bowel reconstruction is ongoing.


OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness and safety of antecolic and retrocolic gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.


METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search on 29 September 2015 to identify all randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library 2015, issue 9, MEDLINE (1946 to September 2015), and EMBASE (1974 to September 2015). We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched reference lists of identified trials to identify further relevant trials, and searched the trial registry clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing trials.


METHODS
We considered all randomised controlled trials that compared antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction of bowel continuity after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy for any given indication to be eligible.


METHODS
Two review authors independently screened the identified references and extracted data from the included trials. The same two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials, according to standard Cochrane methodology. We used a random-effects model to pool the results of the individual trials in a meta-analysis. We used odds ratios to compare binary outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes.


RESULTS
Of a total of 216 citations identified by the systematic literature search, we included six randomised controlled trials (reported in nine publications), with a total of 576 participants. We identified a moderate heterogeneity of methodological quality and risk of bias of the included trials. None of the pooled results for our main outcomes of interest showed significant differences: delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18; P = 0.14), mortality (RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; P = 0.72), postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.47; P = 0.92), postoperative haemorrhage (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.65; P = 0.53), intra-abdominal abscess (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.67; P = 0.82), bile leakage (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.15; P = 0.79), reoperation rate (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.31; P = 0.20), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.67; 95%CI -2.85 to 1.51; P = 0.55). Furthermore, the perioperative outcomes duration of operation, intraoperative blood loss and time to NGT removal showed no relevant differences. Only one trial reported quality of life, on a subgroup of participants, also without a significant difference between the two groups at any time point. The overall quality of the evidence was only low to moderate, due to heterogeneity, some inconsistency and risk of bias in the included trials.


CONCLUSIONS
There was low to moderate quality evidence suggesting no significant differences in morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, or quality of life between antecolic and retrocolic reconstruction routes for gastro- or duodenojejunostomy. Due to heterogeneity in definitions of the endpoints between trials, and differences in postoperative management, future research should be based on clearly defined endpoints and standardised perioperative management, to potentially elucidate differences between these two procedures. Novel strategies should be evaluated for prophylaxis and treatment of common complications, such as delayed gastric emptying.
Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, Heidelberg, Germany, 69120.
Felix J
FJ
Hüttner
Rosa
R
Klotz
Alexis
A
Ulrich
Markus W
MW
Büchler
Markus K
MK
Diener
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
3802833
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 06;9(3):e90316
24603478
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2009;16(1):49-55
19083149
J Gastrointest Surg. 2009 Sep;13(9):1674-82
19548039
BMJ. 1997 Nov 22;315(7119):1371-4
9432250
HPB (Oxford). 2011 Nov;13(11):792-6
21999592
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008 Aug;34(8):868-875
18299182
Ann Surg. 2008 Mar;247(3):456-62
18376190
J Korean Surg Soc. 2011 Oct;81(4):257-62
22111081
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2006;13(3):207-11
16708296
Cir Esp. 2013 Apr;91(4):211-6
23452819
Ann Surg. 2013 May;257(5):938-42
23579543
J Gastrointest Surg. 2011 May;15(5):843-52
21409601
BMC Gastroenterol. 2015 Jun 16;15:68
26076690
Ann Surg Oncol. 2005 Mar;12(3):222-7
15827814
J Surg Res. 2011 Dec;171(2):e187-92
22001182
World J Surg. 2014 Feb;38(2):465-75
24121364
Br J Surg. 2015 Aug;102(9):1123-32
26086157
Ann Surg. 1993 Sep;218(3):229-37; discussion 237-8
8103982
Ann Surg. 2007 Aug;246(2):246-53
17667503
Dis Mon. 2013 Nov;59(11):368-402
24183261
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013 Mar;39(3):213-23
23294533
Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123-30
21603045
Surgery. 2007 Nov;142(5):761-8
17981197
Ann Oncol. 2014 Aug;25(8):1650-6
24759568
Surgery. 2005 Jul;138(1):8-13
16003309
HPB (Oxford). 2015 Mar;17(3):202-8
25267428
Br J Surg. 2012 Mar;99(3):404-10
22237731
HPB (Oxford). 2012 Oct;14(10):700-8
22954007
Ann Surg. 2014 Jan;259(1):45-51
24096769
BMJ. 1994 Sep 3;309(6954):597-9
8086953
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Apr 20;5:13
15840177
Ann Surg. 2006 Mar;243(3):316-20
16495694
World J Gastroenterol. 2012 Nov 21;18(43):6315-23
23180954
Arch Surg. 2003 Dec;138(12):1310-4; discussion 1315
14662530
HPB (Oxford). 2014 Apr;16(4):384-94
23991719
HPB Surg. 2015;2015:791704
25918455
Surgery. 2007 Jul;142(1):20-5
17629996
Br J Surg. 2015 Mar;102(4):331-40
25644428
Am J Surg. 2013 Sep;206(3):296-9
23806827
J Am Coll Surg. 2003 Jun;196(6):954-64
12788434
Ann Surg. 2004 May;239(5):651-7; discussion 657-9
15082969
Arch Surg. 2005 Nov;140(11):1094-9
16301447
Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Jul;102(7):1377-82
17403071