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

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.