| Title |
Pancreaticojejunostomy is comparable to pancreaticogastrostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00423-016-1418-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefano Crippa, Roberto Cirocchi, Justus Randolph, Stefano Partelli, Giulio Belfiori, Alessandra Piccioli, Amilcare Parisi, Massimo Falconi |
| Abstract |
To perform an up-to-date meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) and pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) in order to determine the safer anastomotic technique. Compared to existing meta-analysis, new RCTs were evaluated and subgroup analyses of different anastomotic techniques were carried out. We conducted a bibliographic research using the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database from January 1990 to July 2015 of RCTs. Only RCTs, in English, that compared PG versus all types of PJ were selected. Data were independently extracted by two authors. We performed a quantitative systematic review following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. A random-effect model was applied. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I (2) and χ (2) tests. Primary outcomes were rate of overall and clinically significant pancreatic fistula (POPF). Ten RCTs were identified including 1629 patients, 826 undergoing PG and 803 undergoing PJ. RCTs showed significant heterogeneity regarding definitions of POPF, perioperative management, and characteristics of pancreatic gland. No significant differences were found in the rate of overall and clinically significant POPF, morbidity, mortality, reoperation, and intra-abdominal sepsis when PG was compared with all types PJ or when subgroup analysis (double-layer PG with or without anterior gastrotomy versus duct to mucosa PJ and single-layer PG versus single-layer end-to-end/end-to-side PJ) were analyzed. PG is not superior to PJ in the prevention of POPF. Current RCTs have major methodological limitations with significant heterogeneity in regard to surgical techniques, definition of POPF/complications, and perioperative management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 18 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 47% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 21 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,318,677
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#622
of 1,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,925
of 299,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#18
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,129 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,499 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.