↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Stents for the prevention of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
Title
Stents for the prevention of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008914.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhiyong Dong, Jing Xu, Zhen Wang, Maxim S Petrov

Abstract

Several studies have demonstrated that the use of pancreatic duct stents following pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with a lower risk of pancreatic fistula. However, to date there is a lack of accord in the literature on whether the use of stents is beneficial and, if so, whether internal or external stenting, with or without replacement, is preferable. This is an update of a systematic review. To determine the efficacy of pancreatic stents in preventing pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and four major Chinese biomedical databases up to November 2015. We also searched several major trials registers. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of stents (either internal or external) versus no stents, and comparing internal stents versus external stents, replacement versus no replacement following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Two review authors independently extracted the data. The outcomes studied were incidence of pancreatic fistula, need for reoperation, length of hospital stay, overall complications, and in-hospital mortality. We showed the results as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/). We included eight studies (1018 participants). The average age of the participants ranged from 56 to 68 years. Most of the studies were conducted in single centers in Japan (four studies), China (two studies), France (one study), and the USA (one study). The risk of bias was low or unclear for most domains across the studies. Stents versus no stentsThe effect of stents on reducing pancreatic fistula in people undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy was uncertain due to the low quality of the evidence (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.14; 605 participants; 4 studies). The risk of in-hospital mortality was 3% in people who did receive stents compared with 2% (95% CI 1% to 6%) in people who had stents (RR 0.73, 0.28 to 1.94; 605 participants; 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The effect of stents on reoperation was uncertain due to wide confidence intervals (RR 0.67, 0.36 to 1.22; 512 participants; 3 studies; moderate-quality evidence). We found moderate-quality evidence that using stents reduces total hospital stay by just under four days (mean difference (MD) -3.68, 95% CI -6.52 to -0.84; 605 participants; 4 studies). The risk of delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, and intra-abdominal abscess was uncertain (gastric emptying: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.35; moderate-quality evidence) (wound infection: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.32; moderate-quality evidence) (abscess: RR 1.38, 0.49 to 3.85; low-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis by type of stent provided limited evidence that external stents lead to lower risk of fistula compared with internal stents. External versus internal stentsThe effect of external stents on the risk of pancreatic fistula, reoperation, delayed gastric emptying, and intra-abdominal abscess compared with internal stents was uncertain due to low-quality evidence (fistula: RR 1.44, 0.94 to 2.21; 362 participants; 3 studies) (reoperation: RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.79; 319 participants; 3 studies) (gastric emptying: RR 1.65, 0.66 to 4.09; 362 participants; 3 studies) (abscess: RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 4.58; 362 participants; 3 studies). The rate of in-hospital mortality was lower in studies comparing internal and external stents than in those comparing stents with no stents. One death occurred in the external-stent group (RR 0.33, 0.01 to 7.99; low-quality evidence). There were no cases of pancreatitis in participants who had internal stents compared with three in those who had external stents (RR 0.15, 0.01 to 2.73; low-quality evidence). The difference between internal and external stents on total hospital stay was uncertain due to the wide confidence intervals around the average effect of 1.7 days fewer with internal stents (9.18 days fewer to 5.84 days longer; 262 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). The analysis of wound infection could not exclude a protective effect with either approach (RR 1.41, 0.44 to 4.48; 319 participants; 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Operative replacement of pancreatic juice versus not replacing pancreatic juice There was insufficient evidence available from a small trial to ascertain the effect of replacing pancreatic juice. This systematic review has identified limited evidence on the effects of stents. We have not been able to identify convincing direct evidence of superiority of external over internal stents. We found a limited number of RCTs with small sample sizes. Further RCTs on the use of stents after pancreaticoduodenectomy are warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 23 23%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 30 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2021.
All research outputs
#14,377,422
of 18,652,463 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,748
of 11,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,516
of 274,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#139
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,652,463 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,838 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.2. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.