4.5 Review

A systematic review of post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage management stratified according to ISGPS grading

期刊

HPB
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 1110-1118

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.12.002

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that the reporting of post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH) according to ISGPS guidelines is limited, and there are inconsistencies in the definitions and reporting of outcomes.
Background: Morbidity and mortality from post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH) remains high. The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) published guidelines to standardise definitions of PPH severity, management and reporting. This study aimed to i) identify the number of studies reporting PPH using ISGPS guidelines (Grade A, B or C) and ii) describe treatment modality success by grade.Methods: A systematic literature review was performed, identifying studies reporting PPH by ISGPS Grade and their subsequent management.Results: Of 62 studies reporting on PPH management, 17 (27.4%) stratified by ISGPS guidelines and included 608 incidences of PPH: 48 Grade A, 274 Grade B (62 early, 166 late, 46 unspecified) and 286 Grade C. 96% of Grade A PPH were treated conservatively. Of 62 early Grade B, 54.8% were managed conservatively and 37.1% surgically. Late Grade B were managed non-operatively in 25.3% (42/166), with successful endoscopy in 90.9% (10/11) and angiography in 90.3% (28/31). In Grade C, endoscopic treatment was successful in 64.4% (29/45) and angiography in 90.8% (108/119). Surgical intervention was required in 43.5% early Grade B, 7.8% late Grade B and 33.2% Grade C.Conclusion: PPH grading is underreported and despite guidelines, inconsistencies remain when using definitions and reporting of outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据