Antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialised nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant lesions, partial pancreaticoduodenectomy represents the standard treatment for resectable tumours. The gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy can be reestablished via either an antecolic or retrocolic route. The debate about the more favourable technique for bowel reconstruction is ongoing.

To compare the effectiveness and safety of antecolic and retrocolic gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.

In this updated version, we conducted a systematic literature search up to 6 July 2021 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 6, MEDLINE (1946 to 6 July 2021), and Embase (1974 to 6 July 2021). We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched reference lists of identified trials to identify further relevant trials, and searched the trial registries clinicaltrials.govand World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials.

We considered all RCTs comparing antecolic with retrocolic reconstruction of bowel continuity after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy for any given indication to be eligible.

Two review authors independently screened the identified references and extracted data from the included trials. The same two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials, according to standard Cochrane methodology. We used a random-effects model to pool the results of the individual trials in a meta-analysis. We used odds ratios (OR) to compare binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes.

Of a total of 287 citations identified by the systematic literature search, we included eight randomised controlled trials (reported in 11 publications), with a total of 818 participants. There was high risk of bias in all of the trials in regard to blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors and unclear risk for selective reporting in six of the trials. There was little or no difference in the frequency of delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.09; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence) with relevant heterogeneity between trials (I²=40%). There was little or no difference in postoperative mortality (risk difference (RD) -0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; eight trials, 818 participants, high-certainty evidence); postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.40; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence); postoperative haemorrhage (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.59; six trials, 742 participants, low-certainty evidence); intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.74; seven trials, 788 participants, low-certainty evidence); bile leakage (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.91; seven trials, 606 participants, low-certainty evidence); reoperation rate (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.36; five trials, 682 participants, low-certainty evidence); and length of hospital stay (MD -0.21; 95% CI -1.41 to 0.99; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence). Only one trial reported quality of life, on a subgroup of 73 participants, also without a relevant difference between the two groups at any time point. The overall certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, due to some degree of heterogeneity, inconsistency and risk of bias in the included trials.

There was low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that antecolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy results in little to no difference in morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, or quality of life. Due to heterogeneity in definitions of the endpoints between trials, and differences in postoperative management, future research should be based on clearly defined endpoints and standardised perioperative management, to potentially elucidate differences between these two procedures. Novel strategies should be evaluated for prophylaxis and treatment of common complications, such as delayed gastric emptying.