Table 2.

Effects of non-surgical interventions on POPF following pancreatectomy

Author	Type of study	No. of patients	Type of intervention	Results
Bassi et al. (2010) [54]	Prospective Randomized Trial	114 • 57 • 57	Early (POD 3) vs. late (POD 5 and beyond) removal of drain	• Lower incidence of POPF in early drain removal (1.8 %) vs. late drain removal groups (26.3 %, p = 0.0001, OR = 20) • Significant association between POPF and timing of drain removal (p < 0.001) • Decreased rate of abdominal complications (p = 0.002) and pulmonary complications (p = 0.007) • Decreased median hospital stay (p = 0.018) and hospital costs (p = 0.02) in early drain removal group
Yokoyama et al. (2014) [109]	Study design similar to a Randomized controlled study	60 • 30 • 30 (46 included in final analysis)	Enteral replacement of externally drained pancreatic juice (R group) vs. non-replacement of pancreatic juice (NR group) after pancreatoduodenectomy	• Significantly higher amylase secretion on POD 7 in the non-replacement group (p = 0.044). • Higher incidence of > grade B POPF in the NR vs. R groups (33.1 vs. 9.1 %, p = 0.046)
Allen et al. (2014) [12]	Randomized double blind trial	300 • 152 • 148	Perioperative subcutaneous pasireotide vs. placebo	• Significantly lower incidence of grade 3 or higher POPF, pancreatic leak or abscess in patients who received pasireotide (p = 0.006)
Fernandez-Cruz et al. (2013) [60]	Prospective randomized trial	62 • 32 • 30	Subcutaneous octreotide vs. placebo	No significant difference between the two groups in median pancreatic juice output (p = 0.538)
Yeo et al. (2000) [61]	Prospective randomized placebo-controlled trial	211 • 104 • 107	Prophylactic octreotide vs. saline control	No significant difference between the two groups in POPF rates (11 % in octreotide group, 9 % in control group, p > 0.05)