This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Evidence-Based Medicine  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Endocrine Surgery  • Blood/ Coagulation  • Review  • Alert me on articles by topic

A Meta-analysis

Paolo Limongelli, MD; Shirin E. Khorsandi, MD; Madhava Pai, MRCS; James E. Jackson, MD, FRCR; Paul Tait, MD, FRCR; John Tierris, MD; Nagy A. Habib, MD, FRCS; Robin C. N. Williamson, MD, FRCS; Long R. Jiao, MD, FRCS

Arch Surg. 2008;143(10):1001-1007.

Objective  To determine whether interventional radiology (IR) or laparotomy (LAP) is the best management of delayed postoperative hemorrhage (DPH) after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Data Source  We undertook an electronic search of MEDLINE and selected for analysis only original articles published between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2007.

Study Selection  Two of us independently selected studies reporting on clinical presentation and incidence of postoperative DPH and the following outcomes: complete hemostasis, morbidity, and mortality.

Data Extraction  Two of us independently performed data extraction. Data were entered and analyzed by means of dedicated software from The Cochrane Collaboration. A random-effects meta-analytical technique was used for analysis.

Data Synthesis  One hundred sixty-three cases of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy were identified from the literature. The incidence of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy was 3.9%. Seventy-seven patients (47.2%) underwent LAP; 73 (44.8%), IR; and 13 (8%), conservative treatment. On meta-analysis comparing LAP vs IR for DPH, no significant difference was found between the 2 treatment options for complete hemostasis (73% vs 76%; P = .23), mortality (43% vs 20%; P = .14), or morbidity (77% vs 35%; P = .06).

Conclusions  This meta-analysis, although based on data from small case series, is unable to demonstrate any significant difference between LAP and IR in the management of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The management of this life-threatening complication is difficult, and the appropriate treatment pathway ultimately will be decided by the clinical status of the patient and the institution preference.

Author Affiliations: Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Unit, Division of Surgery and Intensive Care (Drs Limongelli, Khorsandi, Pai, Tierris, Habib, Williamson, and Jiao), and Department of Radiology (Drs Jackson and Tait), Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College School of Medicine, London, England.

RELATED ARTICLE

Management of Delayed Postoperative Hemorrhage After Pancreaticoduodenectomy—Invited Critique
Thomas J. Howard
Arch Surg. 2008;143(10):1007.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT