1 research outputs found
Supplementary Material for: Binding versus Conventional Pancreaticojejunostomy in Preventing Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
<p><b><i>Background:</i></b> The aim of this study was to compare the
safety and efficacy of a new technology, binding pancreaticojejunostomy
(BPJ), with conventional pancreaticojejunostomy (CPJ) after
pancreaticoduodenectomy in preventing postoperative pancreatic fistula
(POPF). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Randomized controlled trials and
observational studies were retrieved from literature searches. Pooled OR
with 95% CI for dichotomous variables and weighted mean difference with
95% CI for continuous variables were calculated. Fixed-effect and
random-effect models as well as subgroup analysis were used for
sensitivity analysis. <b><i>Results:</i></b> No statistically
significant differences were found in the incidence of POPF, delayed
gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, reoperation, morbidity,
mortality, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, blood
transfusion, and hospital stay between 2 groups. However, the total
costs of hospitalization and ordinary stay were higher in BPJ group
(€10,513 ± €6,536 vs. €8,238 ± €4,687, <i>p</i> = 0.002; €7,946 ± €5,023 vs. €5,700 ± €2,902, <i>p</i> = 0.015, respectively). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b>
Our study showed BPJ was as safe as CPJ. However, no significant
superiority was found in BPJ group regarding the incidence of POPF. The
total costs of hospital stay were higher for patients undergoing BPJ.
Surgeons can prefer to perform the digestive tract reconstruction of
their choice.</p