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
. 2022 Mar 15;3(3):CD013462.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013462.pub2.

Duct-to-mucosa versus other types of pancreaticojejunostomy for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy

Hua Hai  1 , Zhuyin Li  2 , Ziwei Zhang  3 , Yao Cheng  4 , Zuojin Liu  4 , Jianping Gong  4 , Yilei Deng  2
Affiliations

Duct-to-mucosa versus other types of pancreaticojejunostomy for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy

Hua Hai et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Postoperative pancreatic fistula is a common and serious complication following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy has been used in many centers to reconstruct pancreatic digestive continuity following pancreatoduodenectomy, however, its efficacy and safety are uncertain.

Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy versus other types of pancreaticojejunostomy for the reconstruction of pancreatic digestive continuity in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, and to compare the effects of different duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy techniques.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Library (2021, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to 9 January 2021), Embase (1988 to 9 January 2021), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1982 to 9 January 2021).

Selection criteria: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy with other types of pancreaticojejunostomy (e.g. invagination pancreaticojejunostomy, binding pancreaticojejunostomy) in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. We also included RCTs that compared different types of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes.

Main results: We included 11 RCTs involving a total of 1696 participants in the review. One RCT was a dual-center study; the other 10 RCTs were single-center studies conducted in: China (4 studies); Japan (2 studies); USA (1 study); Egypt (1 study); Germany (1 study); India (1 study); and Italy (1 study). The mean age of participants ranged from 54 to 68 years. All RCTs were at high risk of bias. Duct-to-mucosa versus any other type of pancreaticojejunostomy We included 10 RCTs involving 1472 participants comparing duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy with invagination pancreaticojejunostomy: 732 participants were randomized to the duct-to-mucosa group, and 740 participants were randomized to the invagination group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Comparing the two techniques, the evidence is very uncertain for the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C; RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.26; 7 studies, 1122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49; 10 studies, 1472 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of surgical reintervention (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.95; 10 studies, 1472 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of postoperative bleeding (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.42; 9 studies, 1275 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall rate of surgical complications (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; 5 studies, 750 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.41 days, 95% CI -1.87 to 1.04; 4 studies, 658 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report adverse events or quality of life outcomes. One type of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy versus a different type of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy We included one RCT involving 224 participants comparing duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique with duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique: 112 participants were randomized to the modified Blumgart group, and 112 participants were randomized to the traditional interrupted group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Comparing the two techniques, the evidence is very uncertain for the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C; RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.75; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (there were no deaths in either group; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of surgical reintervention (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.18 to 20.91; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of postoperative bleeding (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.12 to 70.11; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall rate of surgical complications (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.51; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (15 days versus 15 days; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report adverse events or quality of life outcomes.

Authors' conclusions: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy compared to invagination pancreaticojejunostomy on any of the outcomes, including rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C), postoperative mortality, rate of surgical reintervention, rate of postoperative bleeding, overall rate of surgical complications, and length of hospital stay. The evidence is also very uncertain whether duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique is superior, equivalent or inferior to duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique. None of the studies reported adverse events or quality of life outcomes.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03600584.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

HH: none known Zhuyin Li: none known ZZ: none known YC: none known Zuojin Liu: none known JG: none known YD: none known

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgments about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study.
4
4
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Duct‐to‐mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy, outcome: 1.2 Postoperative mortality.
5
5
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Duct‐to‐mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy, outcome: 1.3 Rate of surgical reintervention.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Duct‐to‐mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy, Outcome 1: Rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C defined according to the 2005 ISGPF definition)
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Duct‐to‐mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy, Outcome 2: Postoperative mortality
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: Duct‐to‐mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy, Outcome 3: Rate of surgical reintervention
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1: Duct‐to‐mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy, Outcome 4: Rate of postoperative bleeding
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1: Duct‐to‐mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy, Outcome 5: Overall rate of surgical complications
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1: Duct‐to‐mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy, Outcome 6: Length of hospital stay
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2: Duct‐to‐mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy (sensitivity analysis including studies that did or did not use the ISGPF definition of POPF), Outcome 1: Rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3: Duct‐to‐mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique versus duct‐to‐mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique, Outcome 1: Rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C defined according to the 2016 ISGPS definition)
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3: Duct‐to‐mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique versus duct‐to‐mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique, Outcome 2: Postoperative mortality
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3: Duct‐to‐mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique versus duct‐to‐mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique, Outcome 3: Rate of surgical reintervention
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3: Duct‐to‐mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique versus duct‐to‐mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique, Outcome 4: Rate of postoperative bleeding
3.5
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3: Duct‐to‐mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique versus duct‐to‐mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique, Outcome 5: Overall rate of surgical complications
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4: Duct‐to‐mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy (stratified by pancreatic texture), Outcome 1: Rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade A or B or C defined according to the 2005 ISGPF definition)
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4: Duct‐to‐mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy (stratified by pancreatic texture), Outcome 2: Postoperative mortality
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5: Duct‐to‐mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy (sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model), Outcome 1: Rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C defined according to the 2005 ISGPF definition)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013462

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Bai 2016 {published data only}
    1. Bai X, Zhang Q, Gao S, Lou J, Li G, Zhang Y, et al.Duct-to-mucosa vs invagination for pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial from a single surgeon. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2016;222(1):10-18. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.10.003] - DOI - PubMed
Bassi 2003 {published data only}
    1. Bassi C, Falconi M, Molinari E, Mantovani W, Butturini G, Gumbs AA, et al.Duct-to-mucosa versus end-to-side pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Surgery 2003;134(5):766-71. [DOI: 10.1016/s0039-6060(03)00345-3] - DOI - PubMed
Berger 2009 {published data only}
    1. Berger AC, Howard TJ, Kennedy EP, Sauter PK, Bower-Cherry M, Dutkevitch S, et al.Does type of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy decrease rate of pancreatic fistula? A randomized, prospective, dual-institution trial. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2009;208(5):738-47. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.12.031] - DOI - PubMed
Chou 1996 {published data only}
    1. Chou FF, Sheen-Chen SM, Chen YS, Chen MC, Chen CL.Postoperative morbidity and mortality of pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancer. European Journal of Surgery 1996;162(6):477-81. - PubMed
El Nakeeb 2015 {published data only}
    1. El Nakeeb A, El Hemaly M, Askr W, Abd Ellatif M, Hamed H, Elghawalby A, et al.Comparative study between duct to mucosa and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized study. International Journal of Surgery 2015;16(Pt A):1-6. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.02.002] - DOI - PubMed
Han 2009 {published data only}
    1. Han J, Wang X, Quan Z, Zhu W.Duct-to-mucosa anastomosis and incidence of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Journal of Medical Postgraduates 2003;22(9):961-4. [DOI: 10.16571/j.cnki.1008-8199.2009.09.017] - DOI
Hirono 2019 {published data only}
    1. Hirono S, Kawai M, Okada KI, Miyazawa M, Kitahata Y, Hayami S, et al.Modified blumgart mattress suture versus conventional interrupted suture in pancreaticojejunostomy during pancreaticoduodenectomy: randomized controlled trial. Annals of Surgery 2019;269(2):243-51. [DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002802] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Langrehr 2005 {published data only}
    1. Langrehr JM, Bahra M, Jacob D, Glanemann M, Neuhaus P.Prospective randomized comparison between a new mattress technique and Cattell (duct-to-mucosa) pancreaticojejunostomy for pancreatic resection. World Journal of Surgery 2005;29(9):1111-9. [DOI: 10.1007/s00268-005-7875-0] - DOI - PubMed
Senda 2018 {published data only}
    1. Senda Y, Shimizu Y, Natsume S, Ito S, Komori K, Abe T, et al.Randomized clinical trial of duct-to-mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy. British Journal of Surgery 2018;105(1):48-57. [DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10727] - DOI - PubMed
Singh 2018 {published data only}
    1. Singh AN, Pal S, Mangla V, Kilambi R, George J, Dash NR, et al.Pancreaticojejunostomy: Does the technique matter? A randomized trial. Journal of Surgical Oncology 2018;117(3):389-96. [DOI: 10.1002/jso.24873] - DOI - PubMed
Xu 2015 {published data only}
    1. Xu J, Zhang B, Shi S, Qin Y, Ji S, Xu W, et al.Papillary-like main pancreatic duct invaginated pancreaticojejunostomy versus duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A prospective randomized trial. Surgery 2015;158(5):1211-8. [DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.04.020] - DOI - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Batignani 2005 {published data only}
    1. Batignani G, Fratini G, Zuckermann M, Bianchini E, Tonelli F.Comparison of Wirsung-jejunal duct-to-mucosa and dunking technique for pancreatojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy. Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases International 2005;4(3):450-5. - PubMed
Casadei 2020 {published data only}
    1. Casadei R, Ricci C, Ingaldi C, Alberici L, De Raffele E, Minni F.Comparison of blumgart anastomosis with duct-to-mucosa anastomosis and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-center propensity score matching analysis. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 2020;1:29. [DOI: 10.1007/s11605-020-04528-3] - DOI - PubMed
Lee 2018 {published data only}
    1. Lee YN, Kim WY.Comparison of Blumgart versus conventional duct-to-mucosa anastomosis for pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2018;22(3):253-60. [DOI: 10.14701/ahbps.2018.22.3.253] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Peng 2003 {published data only}
    1. Peng SY, Mou YP, Liu YB, Su Y, Peng CH, Cai XJ, et al.Binding pancreaticojejunostomy: 150 consecutive cases without leakage. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 2003;7(7):898-900. [DOI: 10.1007/s11605-003-0036-6] - DOI - PubMed
Peng 2007 {published data only}
    1. Peng SY, Wang JW, Lau WY, Cai XJ, Mou YP, Liu YB, et al.Conventional versus binding pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Annals of Surgery 2007;245(5):692-8. [DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000255588.50964.5d] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Reissman 1995 {published data only}
    1. Reissman P, Perry Y, Cuenca A, Bloom A, Eid A, Shiloni E, et al.Pancreaticojejunostomy versus controlled pancreaticocutaneous fistula in pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary carcinoma. American Journal of Surgery 1995;169(6):585-8. [DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9610(99)80226-8] - DOI - PubMed
Wei 2015 {published data only}
    1. Wei J, Liu X, Wu J, Xu W, Zhou J, Lu Z, et al.Modified one-layer duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy reduces pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. International Surgery 2018;103(7-8):378-85. [DOI: 10.9738/INTSURG-D-15-00094.1] - DOI - PubMed
Wu 2019 {published data only}
    1. Wu T, Guo Y, Bi J, Liu S, Guo Y, Bao S.Modified duct-to-mucosa versus conventional pancreaticoenterostomy for pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective cohort study based on propensity score matching analysis. World Journal of Surgical Oncology 2019;17(1):5. [DOI: 10.1186/s12957-018-1557-5] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Zhang 2013 {published data only}
    1. Zhang JL, Xiao ZY, Lai DM, Sun J, He CC, Zhang YF, et al.Comparison of duct-to-mucosa and end-to-side pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Hepato-gastroenterology 2013;60(121):176-9. [DOI: 10.5754/hge12496] - DOI - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Velineni 2019 {published data only}
    1. Velineni SV, Somasundaram S, Rebella P, Guduru VR.Impact of modified duct to mucosa (Buchler) vs binding PJ (Pengs) pancreaticojejunostomy on the functional and morphological changes in pancreatic remnant after pancreaticoduodenectomy - a randomised control study. HPB 2019;21(Suppl 2):S318.

References to ongoing studies

NCT03600584 {published data only}
    1. NCT03600584.Modified one-layer duct-to-mucosa versus invagination for pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03600584 (accessed 29 November 2019).
Pan 2016 {published data only}
    1. Pan SB, Geng W, Zhou DC, Chen JM, Zhao HC, Liu FB.One-layer versus two-layer duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2016;17(1):407. [DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1517-8] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Additional references

Bai 2013
    1. Bai XL, Zhang Q, Masood N, Masood W, Gao SL, Zhang Y, et al.Duct-to-mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis. Chinese Medical Journal 2013;126(22):4340-7. - PubMed
Bassi 2005
    1. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, et al.Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 2005;138(1):8-13. [DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.05.001] - DOI - PubMed
Bassi 2017
    1. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M, et al.The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 2017;161(3):584-91. [DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014] - DOI - PubMed
Bray 2018
    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A.Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2018;68(6):394-424. [DOI: 10.3322/caac.21492] - DOI - PubMed
Callery 2013
    1. Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, Chaikof EL, Vollmer CM Jr.A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2013;216(1):1-14. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.09.002] - DOI - PubMed
Cao 2020
    1. Cao Z, Luo W, Qiu J, Liu Y, Zheng L, Zhang T.Is invagination anastomosis more effective in reducing clinically relevant pancreatic fistula for soft pancreas after pancreaticoduodenectomy under novel fistula criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers In Oncology 2020;10:1637. [DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01637] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Casadei 2013
    1. Casadei R, Ricci C, Silvestri S, Campra D, Ercolani G, D'Ambra M, et al.Peng's binding pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. An Italian, prospective, dual-institution study. Pancreatology 2013;13(3):305-9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2013.03.003] - DOI - PubMed
Chen 2015
    1. Chen KT, Devarajan K, Hoffman JP.Morbidity among long-term survivors after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Annals of Surgical Oncology 2015;22(4):1185-9. [DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-3969-y] - DOI - PubMed
Cheng 2014
    1. Cheng Y, Jia Q, Xiong X, He D, Cheng NS.Hepatobiliary and pancreatic: traumatic neuroma of the ampulla of Vater. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2014;29(7):1342. [DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12625] - DOI - PubMed
Cheng 2017
    1. Cheng Y, Briarava M, Lai M, Wang X, Tu B, Cheng N, et al.Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 9. Art. No: CD012257. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012257.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Clavien 2009
    1. Clavien PA, Barkun J, Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al.The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Annals of Surgery 2009;250(2):187-96. [DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2] - DOI - PubMed
Connor 2005
    1. Connor S, Alexakis N, Garden OJ, Leandros E, Bramis J, Wigmore SJ.Meta-analysis of the value of somatostatin and its analogues in reducing complications associated with pancreatic surgery. British Journal of Surgery 2005;92(9):1059-67. [DOI: 10.1002/bjs.5107] - DOI - PubMed
Conzo 2015
    1. Conzo G, Gambardella C, Tartaglia E, Sciascia V, Mauriello C, Napolitano S, et al.Pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy. Evaluation of different surgical approaches in the management of pancreatic stump. Literature review. International Journal of Surgery 2015;21(Suppl 1):S4-9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.04.088] - DOI - PubMed
CTRI/2010/091/000531
    1. CTRI/2010/091/000531.Duct-to-mucosa and dunking methods of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy? A randomized clinical trial. ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pdf_generate.php?trialid=1704&EncHid=&amp... (first received 25 May 2010).
Deng 2020
    1. Deng Y, He S, Cheng Y, Cheng N, Gong J, Gong J, et al.Fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 3. Art. No: CD009621. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009621.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Dindo 2004
    1. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA.Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Annals of Surgery 2004;240(2):205-13. [DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Dong 2016
    1. Dong Z, Xu J, Wang Z, Petrov MS.Stents for the prevention of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 5. Art. No: CD008914. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008914.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Egger 1997
    1. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C.Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315(7109):629-34. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Ferlay 2019
    1. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Mathers C, Parkin DM, Piñeros M, et al.Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. International Journal of Cancer 2019;144(8):1941-53. [DOI: 10.1002/ijc.31937] - DOI - PubMed
GBD 2019
    1. GBD 2017 Pancreatic Cancer Collaborators.The global, regional, and national burden of pancreatic cancer and its attributable risk factors in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2019;4(12):934-47. [DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30347-4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT [Computer program]
    1. GRADEpro GDT.Version accessed 4 October 2018. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2015. Available at gradepro.org.
Gurusamy 2013
    1. Gurusamy KS, Koti R, Fusai G, Davidson BR.Somatostatin analogues for pancreatic surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 4. Art. No: CD008370. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008370.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Guyatt 2008
    1. Guyatt G, Oxman A, Vist G, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al.GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650):924-6. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Hackert 2011
    1. Hackert T, Werner J, Buchler MW.Postoperative pancreatic fistula. The Surgeon 2011;9(4):211-17. [DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2010.10.011] - DOI - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG.Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557-60. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2017
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA, editor(s).Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017), Cochrane, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Higgins 2021
    1. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editor(s).Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Hua 2015
    1. Hua J, He Z, Qian D, Meng H, Zhou B, Song Z.Duct-to-mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 2015;19(10):1900-9. [DOI: 10.1007/s11605-015-2913-1] - DOI - PubMed
Hüttner 2016
    1. Hüttner FJ, Fitzmaurice C, Schwarzer G, Seiler CM, Antes G, Büchler MW, et al.Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (classic Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 2. Art. No: CD006053. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub6] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Kilambi 2018
    1. Kilambi R, Singh AN.Duct-to-mucosa versus dunking techniques of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: Do we need more trials? A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Journal of Surgical Oncology 2018;117(5):928-39. [DOI: 10.1002/jso.24986] - DOI - PubMed
Klaiber 2015
    1. Klaiber U, Probst P, Knebel P, Contin P, Diener MK, Büchler MW, et al.Meta-analysis of complication rates for single-loop versus dual-loop (Roux-en-Y) with isolated pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy. British Journal of Surgery 2015;102(4):331-40. [DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9703] - DOI - PubMed
Kone 2020
    1. Kone LB, Maker VK, Banulescu M, Maker AV.A propensity score analysis of over 12,000 pancreaticojejunal anastomoses after pancreaticoduodenectomy: does technique impact the clinically relevant fistula rate? HPB (Oxford) 2020;22(10):1394-1401. [DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.01.002] - DOI - PubMed
Lai 2009
    1. Lai EC, Lau SH, Lau WY.Measures to prevent pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: a comprehensive review. Archives of Surgery 2009;144(11):1074-80. [DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.193] - DOI - PubMed
Lyu 2018
    1. Lyu Y, Li T, Wang B, Cheng Y, Zhao S.Selection of pancreaticojejunostomy technique after pancreaticoduodenectomy: duct-to-mucosa anastomosis is not better than invagination anastomosis: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97(40):e12621. [DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012621] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Maemura 2015
    1. Maemura K, Mataki Y, Kurahara H, Mori S, Higo N, Sakoda M, et al.Pancreaticogastrostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy using twin square wrapping with duct-to-mucosa anastomosis. European Surgical Research 2015;55(1-2):109-18. [DOI: 10.1159/000433425] - DOI - PubMed
Maisonneuve 2019
    1. Maisonneuve P.Epidemiology and burden of pancreatic cancer. Presse Medicale 2019;48(3 Pt 2):e113-23. [DOI: 10.1016/j.lpm.2019.02.030] - DOI - PubMed
McMillan 2016
    1. McMillan MT, Soi S, Asbun HJ, Ball CG, Bassi C, Beane JD, et al.Risk-adjusted outcomes of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy: a model for performance evaluation. Annals of Surgery 2016;264(2):344-52. [DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001537] - DOI - PubMed
Mizrahi 2020
    1. Mizrahi JD, Surana R, Valle JW, Shroff RT.Pancreatic cancer. Lancet 2020;395(10242):2008-20. [DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30974-0] - DOI - PubMed
NCT01695447
    1. NCT01695447.Randomised controlled trail of duct-to-mucosa versus invagination for pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01695447 (first received 28 September 2012).
NCT01731821
    1. NCT01731821.A prospective randomized clinical trial of two surgical techniques for pancreaticojejunostomy in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: nonstented stump-closed vs duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01731821 (first received 22 November 2012).
NCT01898780
    1. NCT01898780.Horizontal mattress vs. interrupted suture in surgical techniques of pancreaticojejunostomy. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01898780 (first received 12 July 2013).
NCT02142517
    1. NCT02142517.Comparative study between duct to mucosa and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized study. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02142517 (first received 20 May 2014).
Page 2021
    1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Park 2021
    1. Park W, Chawla A, O'Reilly EM.Pancreatic cancer: a review. JAMA 2021;326(9):851-62. [DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.13027] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Peng 2002
    1. Peng S, Mou Y, Cai X, Peng C.Binding pancreaticojejunostomy is a new technique to minimize leakage. American Journal of Surgery 2002;183(3):283-5. [DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9610(02)00792-4] - DOI - PubMed
Reeves 2021
    1. Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Shea B, Tugwell P, Wells GA.Chapter 24: Including non-randomized studies on intervention effects. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Review Manager 2020 [Computer program]
    1. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5).Version 5.4. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020.
Rivas 2019
    1. Rivas L, Zettervall SL, Ju T, Olafson S, Holzmacher J, Lin PP, et al.The effect of pancreaticojejunostomy technique on fistula formation following pancreaticoduodenectomy in the soft pancreas. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 2019;23(11):2211-15. [DOI: 10.1007/s11605-019-04164-6] - DOI - PubMed
Shrikhande 2017
    1. Shrikhande SV, Sivasanker M, Vollmer CM, Friess H, Besselink MG, Fingerhut A, et al.Pancreatic anastomosis after pancreatoduodenectomy: A position statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 2017;161(5):1221-34. [DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.021] - DOI - PubMed
Siegel 2021
    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A.Cancer statistics, 2021. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2021;71(1):7-33. [DOI: 10.3322/caac.21654] - DOI - PubMed
Sun 2016
    1. Sun X, Zhang Q, Zhang J, Lou Y, Fu Q, Zhang X, et al.Meta-analysis of invagination and duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: An update. International Journal of Surgery 2016;36(Pt A):240-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.11.008] - DOI - PubMed
Testini 2016
    1. Testini M, Piccinni G, Lissidini G, Gurrado A, Tedeschi M, Franco IF, et al.Surgical management of the pancreatic stump following pancreato-duodenectomy. Journal of Visceral Surgery 2016;153(3):193-202. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.04.003] - DOI - PubMed
UMIN000005890
    1. UMIN000005890.Effect of invagination vs. duct to mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy on postoperative pancreatic fistula during pancreaticoduodenectomy: a randomized controlled trial. upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000006859 (first received 30 June 2011).
Varco 1945
    1. Varco RL.A method of implanting the pancreatic duct into the jejunum in the Whipple operation for carcinoma of the pancreas; case report. Surgery 1945;18:569-73. - PubMed
Xiang 2019
    1. Xiang Y, Wu J, Lin C, Yang Y, Zhang D, Xie Y, et al.Pancreatic reconstruction techniques after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a review of the literature. Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2019;13(8):797-806. [DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2019.1640601] - DOI - PubMed
Xiong 2014
    1. Xiong JJ, Tan CL, Szatmary P, Huang W, Ke NW, Hu WM, et al.Meta-analysis of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. British Journal of Surgery 2014;101(10):1196-1208. [DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9553] - DOI - PubMed
Zhang 2017
    1. Zhang S, Lan Z, Zhang J, Chen Y, Xu Q, Jiang Q, et al.Duct-to-mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2017;8(28):46449-60. [DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.17503] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Cheng 2019
    1. Cheng Y, He S, Xia J, Ding X, Liu Z, Gong J.Duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 10. Art. No: CD013462. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013462] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources