Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 1825–1834 | Cite as

The Pylorus: Take It or Leave It? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pylorus-Preserving versus Standard Whipple Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic or Periampullary Cancer

  • Paul J. Karanicolas
  • Edward Davies
  • Regina Kunz
  • Matthias Briel
  • H. Pavan Koka
  • Darrin M. Payne
  • Shona E. Smith
  • Hui-Ping Hsu
  • Pin-Wen Lin
  • Christian Bloechle
  • Karl-Joseph Paquet
  • Gordon H. Guyatt
Article

Abstract

Background

Our objective was to determine the relative effects of pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) and standard Whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy (SWPD) in patients with pancreatic or periampullary cancer.

Methods

We searched seven bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of articles and textbooks, and we contacted experts in the field of hepatobiliary surgery. We included published and unpublished randomized controlled trials. We evaluated the methodological quality of trials and, in duplicate, extracted data regarding operative, perioperative, and long-term outcomes. We contacted all authors and asked them to provide additional information regarding the trials. We pooled results from the studies by using a random-effects model, evaluated the degree of heterogeneity, and explored potential explanations for heterogeneity.

Results

Six trials that included a total of 574 patients met eligibility criteria. In the pooled analysis, PPPD was 72 minutes faster (P < .001, 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 53–92), with 284 mL less blood loss (P < .001, 95% CI, 176–391) and .66 fewer units of blood transfused (P = .002, 95% CI, .25–1.16). Other perioperative and long-term outcomes did not statistically differ, although the confidence intervals include important differences.

Conclusions

Moderate-quality evidence suggests PPPD is a faster procedure with less blood loss compared with SWPD. Large absolute differences in other key outcomes are unlikely; excluding relatively small differences will, however, require larger, methodologically stronger trials.

Keywords

Pancreatic cancer Pancreaticoduodenectomy Whipple procedure Pylorus Systematic review Meta-analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Murray T, Samuels A, Ghafoor A, Ward E, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2003; 53:5–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sener SF, Fremgen A, Menck HR, Winchester DP. Pancreatic cancer: a report of treatment and survival trends for 100,313 patients diagnosed from 1985–1995, using the National Cancer Database. J Am Coll Surg 1999; 189:1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hedberg M, Borgstrom A, Genell S, Janzon L. Survival following panceatic carcinoma: a follow-up study of all cases recorded in Malmo, Sweden, 1977–1991. Br J Surg 1998; 85:1641–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bramhall SR, Allum WH, Jones AG, Allwood A, Cummins C, Neoptolemos JP. Treatment and survival in 13,560 patients with pancreatic cancer and incidence of the disease in the West Midlands. An epidemiological study. Br J Surg 1995; 82:111–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kausch W. Das Carcinom der Papilla duodeni und seine radikale Entfernung. Bruns Beitr Klin Chir 1912; 78:439–86Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Whipple AO, al. e. Treatment of carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater. Ann Surg 1935; 102:763–79Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Watson K. Carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater. Successful radical resection. Br J Surg 1944; 31:368–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Traverso LW, Longmire WPJ. Preservation of the pylorus in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1978; 146:959–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carter D, Russell R, Pitt H (eds). Rob and Smith’s Operative Surgery: Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery. 5th ed. London: Chapman & Hall, 1996Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Howard J, Idezuki Y, Ihse I, Prinz R (eds). Surgical Diseases of the Pancreas. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1998Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Donner A, Klar N. The statistical analysis of kappa statistics in multiple samples. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49:1053–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fleiss J. The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res 1993; 2:121–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001; 323:42–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999; 282:1054–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Method 2005; 5:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dickerson K, Chan S, Chalmers T, Sacks H, Smith HJ. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1987; 8:343–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7:177–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Breslow N, Day N. Combination of results from a series of 2 × 2 tables; control of confounding. In: Statistical Methods in Cancer Research, vol. 1, The Analysis of Case-Control Studies. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1980:136–46Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21:1539–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sackett D, Haynes R, Guyatt G, Tugwell P. Clinincal Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown, 1991:30Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guyatt G, Sinclair J, Cook D, Glasziou P. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XVI. How to use a treatment recommendation. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1999; 281:1836–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328:1490–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guyatt GH, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, et al. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines. Chest 2006; 129:174–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bell RH Jr. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without pylorus preservation have similar outcomes. Cancer Treat Rev 2005; 31:328–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lin PW, Lin YJ. Prospective randomized comparison between pylorus-preserving and standard pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 1999; 86:603–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lin PW, Shan YS, Lin YJ, Hung CJ. Pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer: PPPD versus Whipple procedure. Hepatogastroenterology 2005; 52:1601–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tran KT, Smeenk HG, van Eijck CH, et al. Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy versus standard Whipple procedure: a prospective, randomized, multicenter analysis of 170 patients with pancreatic and periampullary tumors. Ann Surg 2004; 240:738–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wenger FA, Jacobi CA, Haubold K, Zieren HU, Muller JM. Gastrointestinal quality of life after duodenopancreatectomy in pancreatic carcinoma. Preliminary results of a prospective randomized study: pancreatoduodenectomy or pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Chirurg 1999; 70:1454–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Seiler CA, Wagner M, Bachmann T, et al. Randomized clinical trial of pylorus-preserving duodenopancreatectomy versus classical Whipple resection-long term results. Br J Surg 2005; 92:547–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Seiler CA, Wagner M, Schaller B, Sadowski C, Kulli C, Buchler MW. Pylorus preserving or classical Whipple operation in tumors. Initial clinical results of a prospective randomized study. Swiss Surg 2000; 6:275–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Seiler CA, Wagner M, Sadowski C, Kulli C, Buchler MW. Randomized prospective trial of pylorus-preserving vs. classic duodenopancreatectomy (Whipple procedure): initial clinical results. J Gastrointest Surg 2000; 4:443–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Paquet K-J. Comparison of Whipple’s pancreaticoduodenectomy with the pylorus- preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy—a prospectively controlled, randomized long-term trial. Chir Gastroenterol 1998; 14:54–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bloechle C, Broering DC, Latuske C, Latuske M, v Schrenck T, Izbicki JR. Prospective randomized study to evaluate quality of life after partial pancreatoduodenectomy according to whipple versus pylorus preserving pancreatoduodenectomy according to longmire-traverso for periampullary carcinoma. Deutsche Gesellschaft Chir 1999; (Suppl 1):661–4Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sharp KW, Ross CB, Halter SA, Morrison JG, Richards WO. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with pyloric preservation for carcinoma of the pancreas: a cautionary note. Surgery 1988; 105:645–53Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moosa AR. Pancreatic cancer. Approach to diagnosis, selection for surgery and choice of operation. Cancer 1982; 50:2689–98Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, et al. Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2005; 330:88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul J. Karanicolas
    • 1
    • 3
  • Edward Davies
    • 3
  • Regina Kunz
    • 4
  • Matthias Briel
    • 1
    • 4
  • H. Pavan Koka
    • 1
    • 3
  • Darrin M. Payne
    • 1
    • 3
  • Shona E. Smith
    • 3
  • Hui-Ping Hsu
    • 5
  • Pin-Wen Lin
    • 5
  • Christian Bloechle
    • 6
  • Karl-Joseph Paquet
    • 7
  • Gordon H. Guyatt
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMcMaster UniversityHamilton, OntarioCanada
  2. 2.Department of MedicineMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Western Ontario, University HospitalLondonCanada
  4. 4.Basel Institute for Clinical EpidemiologyUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryNational Cheng Kung University HospitalTainanTaiwan
  6. 6.Department of SurgeryUniversity Hospital EppendorfHamburgGermany
  7. 7.Department of SurgeryHeinz Kalk-HospitalBad KissingenGermany

Personalised recommendations