Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Enucleation Versus Standardized Resection for Small Pancreatic Lesions

Background The appropriate surgical strategy in patients with small pancreatic lesions of low malignant potential, such as pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, remains unknown. Increasing reports suggest limited pancreatic surgery may be a safe option for parenchymal preservation. Methods PubMed and ME...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Annals of Surgical Oncology 2016-02, Vol.23 (2), p.592-599
Main Authors: Chua, Terence C., Yang, Timothy X., Gill, Anthony J., Samra, Jaswinder S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Eye Enucleation
Humans
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Oncology
Pancreatectomy - classification
Pancreatectomy - methods
Pancreatic Neoplasms - surgery
Pancreatic Tumors
Postoperative Complications
Prognosis
Surgery
Surgical Oncology
Surgical Procedures, Operative
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background The appropriate surgical strategy in patients with small pancreatic lesions of low malignant potential, such as pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, remains unknown. Increasing reports suggest limited pancreatic surgery may be a safe option for parenchymal preservation. Methods PubMed and MEDLINE were searched in the English literature for studies from January 2000 to February 2015 examining enucleation for pancreatic lesions that were single-arm and comparative studies (versus resection). Single-arm enucleation studies were systematically reviewed. Comparative studies were included for meta-analysis. Endpoints include safety, complications, mortality, survival, and parenchymal-related outcomes. Results Thirteen studies comprising of 1101 patients undergoing enucleation were included. Seven studies were comparative studies of enucleation and standardized pancreatic resection. Enucleation was a shorter procedure (pooled mean differences (MD) = 109, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 105–114; Z  = 46.37; P  
ISSN:1068-9265
1534-4681
DOI:10.1245/s10434-015-4826-3