Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2012 Apr;36(4):884-91.
doi: 10.1007/s00268-012-1461-z.

Pancreatectomy combined with superior mesenteric vein-portal vein resection for pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis

Affiliations
Free article
Meta-Analysis

Pancreatectomy combined with superior mesenteric vein-portal vein resection for pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis

Yanming Zhou et al. World J Surg. 2012 Apr.
Free article

Abstract

Background: Pancreatectomy combined with superior mesenteric vein-portal vein resection (VR) for pancreatic cancer remains a matter of debate. The present study is a meta-analysis of the available evidence.

Methods: Articles published until end of March 2011, comparing the results of pancreatic resections with VR versus without VR, were searched. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD; with 95% Confidence Intervals [95% CI]) were calculated using either the fixed effects model or the random effects model.

Results: Nineteen nonrandomized studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 2,247 patients. There was no difference in perioperative morbidity (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.74-1.21; P = 0.67), mortality (OR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.73-1.96; P = 0.48), or 5-year overall survival (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.32-1.02; P = 0.06) between patients with VR and those without VR.

Conclusions: Pancreatectomy combined with VR resection for pancreatic cancer is justified because it can result in good perioperative outcome and long-term survival comparable to that obtained with standard resection. Owing to the selection bias and low level of clinical evidence available so far, the results should be interpreted with caution.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Br J Surg. 2011 Jan;98(1):86-92 - PubMed
    1. J Surg Oncol. 2011 Jan 1;103(1):75-84 - PubMed
    1. World J Surg. 1999 Sep;23(9):926-9 - PubMed
    1. Ann Surg. 1996 Sep;224(3):342-7; discussion 347-9 - PubMed
    1. Br J Surg. 1998 May;85(5):611-7 - PubMed

Publication types