FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2754164024> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2754164024 abstract "Background Pancreatoduodenectomy is a surgical procedure used to treat diseases of the pancreatic head and, less often, the duodenum. The most common disease treated is cancer, but pancreatoduodenectomy is also used for people with traumatic lesions and chronic pancreatitis. Following pancreatoduodenectomy, the pancreatic stump must be connected with the small bowel where pancreatic juice can play its role in food digestion. Pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) and pancreatogastrostomy (PG) are surgical procedures commonly used to reconstruct the pancreatic stump after pancreatoduodenectomy. Both of these procedures have a non‐negligible rate of postoperative complications. Since it is unclear which procedure is better, there are currently no international guidelines on how to reconstruct the pancreatic stump after pancreatoduodenectomy, and the choice is based on the surgeon's personal preference. Objectives To assess the effects of pancreaticogastrostomy compared to pancreaticojejunostomy on postoperative pancreatic fistula in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 30 September 2016), Ovid Embase (1974 to 30 September 2016) and CINAHL (1982 to 30 September 2016). We also searched clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) and screened references of eligible articles and systematic reviews on this subject. There were no language or publication date restrictions. Selection criteria We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the clinical outcomes of PJ compared to PG in people undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed descriptive analyses of the included RCTs for the primary (rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula and mortality) and secondary outcomes (length of hospital stay, rate of surgical re‐intervention, overall rate of surgical complications, rate of postoperative bleeding, rate of intra‐abdominal abscess, quality of life, cost analysis). We used a random‐effects model for all analyses. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (using PG as the reference) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as a measure of variability. Main results We included 10 RCTs that enrolled a total of 1629 participants. The characteristics of all studies matched the requirements to compare the two types of surgical reconstruction following pancreatoduodenectomy. All studies reported incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (the main complication) and postoperative mortality. Overall, the risk of bias in included studies was high; only one included study was assessed at low risk of bias. There was little or no difference between PJ and PG in overall risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (PJ 24.3%; PG 21.4%; RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.62; 7 studies; low‐quality evidence). Inclusion of studies that clearly distinguished clinically significant pancreatic fistula resulted in us being uncertain whether PJ improved the risk of pancreatic fistula when compared with PG (19.3% versus 12.8%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.47; very low‐quality evidence). PJ probably has little or no difference from PG in risk of postoperative mortality (3.9% versus 4.8%; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34; moderate‐quality evidence). We found low‐quality evidence that PJ may differ little from PG in length of hospital stay (MD 1.04 days, 95% CI ‐1.18 to 3.27; 4 studies, N = 502) or risk of surgical re‐intervention (11.6% versus 10.3%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61; 7 studies, N = 1263). We found moderate‐quality evidence suggesting little difference between PJ and PG in terms of risk of any surgical complication (46.5% versus 44.5%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18; 9 studies, N = 1513). PJ may slightly improve the risk of postoperative bleeding (9.3% versus 13.8%; RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.93; low‐quality evidence; 8 studies, N = 1386), but may slightly worsen the risk of developing intra‐abdominal abscess (14.7% versus 8.0%; RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.81; 7 studies, N = 1121; low quality evidence). Only one study reported quality of life (N = 320); PG may improve some quality of life parameters over PJ (low‐quality evidence). No studies reported cost analysis data. Authors' conclusions There is no reliable evidence to support the use of pancreatojejunostomy over pancreatogastrostomy. Future large international studies may shed new light on this field of investigation." @default.
• W2754164024 created "2017-09-25" @default.
• W2754164024 creator A5000916029 @default.
• W2754164024 creator A5009562018 @default.
• W2754164024 creator A5031021106 @default.
• W2754164024 creator A5036816780 @default.
• W2754164024 creator A5042433923 @default.
• W2754164024 creator A5051215257 @default.
• W2754164024 creator A5061803937 @default.
• W2754164024 creator A5068797509 @default.
• W2754164024 creator A5075676648 @default.
• W2754164024 creator A5087264224 @default.
• W2754164024 date "2017-09-12" @default.
• W2754164024 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W2754164024 title "Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy" @default.
• W2754164024 cites W1153368919 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W141764257 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W1534947693 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W1585881712 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W1588409322 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W1850709105 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W1900181631 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W1940051907 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W1943507228 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W1966434494 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W1979177739 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W1986168976 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W1986284221 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W1993661685 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2006205286 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2006977914 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2011874830 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2024797761 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2028206730 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2031576258 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2046899963 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2050010050 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2050873516 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2050967082 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2051304367 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2058043213 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2066266237 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2077493347 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2078248657 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2090401649 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2096998881 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2108443032 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2117853299 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2122369639 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2122746989 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2125435699 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2141298616 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2144173184 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W214757487 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2161701454 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2163499552 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2215491218 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2303770776 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2325935489 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2341013286 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2344901890 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2402228569 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2430811927 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2565595087 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2567095994 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2754164024 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W2917837889 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W4210976084 @default.
• W2754164024 cites W759052447 @default.
• W2754164024 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd012257.pub2" @default.
• W2754164024 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6483797" @default.
• W2754164024 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28898386" @default.
• W2754164024 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2754164024 type Work @default.
• W2754164024 sameAs 2754164024 @default.
• W2754164024 citedByCount "54" @default.
• W2754164024 countsByYear W27541640242017 @default.
• W2754164024 countsByYear W27541640242018 @default.
• W2754164024 countsByYear W27541640242019 @default.
• W2754164024 countsByYear W27541640242020 @default.
• W2754164024 countsByYear W27541640242021 @default.
• W2754164024 countsByYear W27541640242022 @default.
• W2754164024 countsByYear W27541640242023 @default.
• W2754164024 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2754164024 hasAuthorship W2754164024A5000916029 @default.
• W2754164024 hasAuthorship W2754164024A5009562018 @default.
• W2754164024 hasAuthorship W2754164024A5031021106 @default.
• W2754164024 hasAuthorship W2754164024A5036816780 @default.
• W2754164024 hasAuthorship W2754164024A5042433923 @default.
• W2754164024 hasAuthorship W2754164024A5051215257 @default.
• W2754164024 hasAuthorship W2754164024A5061803937 @default.
• W2754164024 hasAuthorship W2754164024A5068797509 @default.
• W2754164024 hasAuthorship W2754164024A5075676648 @default.
• W2754164024 hasAuthorship W2754164024A5087264224 @default.
• W2754164024 hasBestOaLocation W27541640242 @default.
• W2754164024 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2754164024 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2754164024 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2754164024 hasConcept C159110652 @default.
• W2754164024 hasConcept C168563851 @default.

• next