Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2019 Sep 20;98(38):e17196. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017196

An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of octreotide for the prevention of postoperative complications after pancreatic resection

Hao Zheng 1, Jiwei Qin 1, Ning Wang 1, Wanjing Chen 1, Qiang Huang 1,∗
Editor: Kou Yi1
PMCID: PMC6756593  PMID: 31567967

Abstract

Background:

The use of octreotide prophylaxis following pancreatic surgery is controversial. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of octreotide for the prevention of postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery through this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods:

Literature databases (including the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases) were searched systematically for relevant articles. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion in our research. We extracted the basic information regarding the patients, intervention procedures, and all complications after pancreatic surgery and then performed the meta-analysis.

Results:

Thirteen RCTs involving 2006 patients were identified. There were no differences between the octreotide group and the placebo group with regard to pancreatic fistulas (PFs) (relative risk [RR] = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62–0.99, P = .05), clinically significant PFs (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.68–1.50, P = .95), mortality (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.78–1.88, P = .40), biliary leakage (RR 0.84, 95% CI = 0.39–1.82, P = .66), delayed gastric emptying (RR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.54–1.27, P = .39), abdominal infection (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.66–1.52, P = 1.00), bleeding (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.78–1.72, P = .46), pulmonary complications (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.45–1.18, P = .20), overall complications (RR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.64–1.01, P = .06), and reoperation rates (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.77–1.81, P = .45). In the high-risk group, octreotide was no more effective at reducing PF formation than placebo (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.67–1.00, P = .05). In addition, octreotide had no influence on the incidence of PF (RR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.14–1.05, P = .06) after distal pancreatic resection and local pancreatic resection.

Conclusion:

The present best evidence suggests that prophylactic use of octreotide has no effect on reducing complications after pancreatic resection.

Keywords: meta-analysis, octreotide, pancreatic fistula, pancreatic resection

1. Introduction

Surgery involving the pancreas is performed to treat pancreatic, bile duct, and periampullary malignant diseases, chronic pancreatitis, trauma, and so on. The incidence of complications after pancreatic surgery remains as high as 28% to 58%[1–3] despite constant exploration and striving to improve surgical techniques and intensive care. Pancreatic fistula (PF) and other complications caused by postoperative PF (POPF) are the most important complications after pancreatic surgery and may even lead to death. Various methods have been tried to reduce the incidence of POPF; however, the incidence of PF is not significantly lower than previously.[4–6] Surgeons are constantly exploring different surgical procedures and using different anastomosis instruments and different medicines to prevent complications. One of the most common methods used is prophylactic somatostatin or synthetic somatostatin analogues to decrease the incidence of PF by inhibiting the exocrine secretions of the pancreas.[7–9]

Octreotide is a synthetic octapeptide analogue of endogenous somatostatin with more specific, more potent, and longer-acting inhibitory effects.[10–12] Although many clinical trials have evaluated the function of octreotide to decrease complications after pancreatic surgery, the results of the research are still controversial.[13–15] Despite the disputes regarding octreotide, it is very common to use octreotide to prevent complications in many clinical centers. Therefore, we conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to further evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic use of octreotide to prevent complications after pancreatic surgery. We hope to provide the present best evidence regarding if prophylactic octreotide is necessary after pancreatic resection.

2. Methods

Ethical approval or patient consent was not required since the present study was a review of previous published literature.

2.1. Search strategy and selection criteria

We identified relevant studies by searching databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register on the Cochrane Library from inception to July 2018. The references of the identified studies were also searched to identify further relevant studies. The research was not restricted by language. We used the following terms and keywords: “pancreaticoduodenectomy or pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy or PD or PPPD or pancreatic resection or pancreatectomy or distal pancreatectomy or DP” and “octreotide or octreotide acetate or somatostatin analogue,” and “randomized controlled trial or RCT or controlled clinical trial or randomized or clinical trials as topic or placebo or randomly or trial.” The inclusion criteria were as follows: the study included all published RCTs that included adults (aged older than 18 years) who underwent surgery involving partial pancreatectomy (surgery for pancreatic cancer, pancreatic-related benign tumors, common bile duct cancer, periampullary cancer, chronic pancreatitis, and trauma). Octreotide was administered prophylactically in the intervention group, and placebo or no intervention was used in the control group. The aim of using octreotide prophylaxis was to prevent complications after pancreatic resection. The primary outcome was the incidence of PF after pancreatic surgery. The secondary endpoints included mortality and other postoperative complications.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: patient information that was unclear and studies that compared octreotide with other prophylactic interventions.

2.2. Data extraction

Two reviewers independently identified the trials according to the predesigned protocol. The basic details were extracted including the name of first author, publication year, country, study design, number of patients, mean age, surgical procedure, administration methods of octreotide, definition of PF, complications in each group, primary endpoints including the incidences of PF and clinically significant PF, and secondary endpoints including the incidences of mortality, overall complications, abdominal infection, bleeding, pulmonary complications, reoperation, biliary leakage, and delayed gastric emptying.

2.3. Assessment of quality

Two reviewers independently screened, extracted, and evaluated the relevant information from the articles. Risk of bias in the included studies was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration tool.[16] The quality of the included studies was evaluated by 7 parameters: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other sources of bias. The items were estimated as “low risk,” “unclear risk,” or “high risk.” Any disagreement was resolved by a discussion until a consensus was reached.

2.4. Statistical methods

Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). The pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The pooled mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with the 95% CI was estimated for continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity among the studies was investigated with the Q test and I2 test with Revman software. If P < 0.05 and I2 > 50%, there was significant heterogeneity; if P ≥ .05 and I2 ≤ 50%, there was no significant heterogeneity. If there was significant heterogeneity, we analyzed data using a random effects model. If there was not significant heterogeneity, we used a fixed effects model.[17,18] A funnel plot was used to explore publication bias. We performed a subgroup analysis based on the level of risk (low-risk stratum vs high-risk stratum) and the surgical procedures (PD vs DP and local pancreatic resection). Pancreas with soft texture and non-dilated pancreatic ducts were considered to belong to the high-risk stratum. A P value <.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Description of studies

A total of 2586 records were identified by the search strategy. A total of 207 duplicates and 2346 clearly irrelevant references identified by reading the titles and abstracts were excluded. Thirty-three references were retrieved for further assessment. Of the 33 references, 4 studies were not about the prevention of postoperative complications, 4 studies were multiple reports, 4 studies were about other irrelevant therapies, 5 studies were non-randomized, and 3 studies compared somatostatin with octreotide (Fig. 1). Finally, 13 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis (Table 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flow diagram of studies screening according to PRISMA guidelines. PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Table 1.

Characteristics of included studies.

3.1.

Open in a new tab

All of the studies were in English. The meta-analysis involved a total of 2006 patients: 1016 were randomized to the octreotide group, and 990 were randomized to the control group. Seven trials had single-center designs, and 6 trials had multicenter designs. The characteristics of the 13 studies including the different definitions of PF are presented in Table 1.

3.2. Risk of bias within studies

The risk of bias of the included studies is presented in Figs. 2 and 3. Overall, the included studies were sufficiently evaluated as having a low risk or moderate risk of bias across the domains. Of the 13 studies, 12 studies provided the details of the generation of the randomization sequence,[19–26,28–31] and only 1 study used an improper randomization method.[27] Eight studies used a double-blind method,[19,22,23,26,28–31] 4 studies adopted a single-blind or open-label method[21,24,25,27] and 1 study did not mention the blinding method.[20] There was a low risk of attrition bias due to the low rate of loss of follow-up, making it unlikely to cause significant bias. The “other risk of bias” was reported as unclear in all the studies.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Risk of bias of the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The items were judged as “low risk” (green), “unclear risk” (yellow), or “high risk” (red).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Risk of bias summary: review author′s judgement about each risk of bias item for each included study, presented as percentages.

3.3. Results of the meta-analyses

3.3.1. Primary outcomes: PF and clinically significant PF

There were no differences between the 2 groups in the incidences of PF and clinically significant PF. After pooling all the trials, 414 PFs occurred (414/2006, 20.6%), including 180 in the octreotide group (180/1016, 17.7%) and 234 in the control group (234/990, 23.6%). The pooled RR was 0.79 (95% CI 0.62–0.99, P = .05) (Fig. 4). Eighty-eight clinically significant PFs occurred (88/832, 10.6%), including 46 in the octreotide group (46/432, 10.6%) and 42 in the control group (42/400, 10.5%). The pooled RR was 1.01 (95% CI 0.68–1.50, P = .95) (Fig. 5).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis comparing octreotide with control group in pancreatic fistula.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis comparing octreotide with control group in clinically significant pancreatic fistula.

3.3.2. Secondary outcome: postoperative complications

There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in the incidences of mortality (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.78–1.88, P = .40) (Fig. 6), biliary leakage (RR 0.84, 95% CI = 0.39–1.82, P = .66) (Fig. 7), delayed gastric emptying (RR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.54–1.27, P = .39) (Fig. 8), abdominal infection (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.66–1.52, P = 1.00) (Fig. 9), bleeding (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.78–1.72, P = .46) (Fig. 10), pulmonary complications (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.45–1.18, P = .20) (Fig. 11), overall complications (RR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.64–1.01, P = .06) (Fig. 12), and reoperation rates (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.77–1.81, P = .45) (Fig. 13).

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis comparing octreotide with control group in mortality.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis comparing octreotide with control group in biliary leakage.

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis comparing octreotide with control group in delayed gastric emptying.

Figure 9.

Figure 9

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis comparing octreotide with control group in abdominal infection.

Figure 10.

Figure 10

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis comparing octreotide with control group in bleeding.

Figure 11.

Figure 11

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis comparing octreotide with control group in pulmonary complications.

Figure 12.

Figure 12

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis comparing octreotide with control group in overall complications.

Figure 13.

Figure 13

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis comparing octreotide with control group in reoperation rates.

3.4. Subgroup analyses

In subgroup analyses, the included studies stratified patients into 2 groups: high-risk and low-risk groups. The pooled analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of PF in the high-risk group (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.67–1.00, P = .05) and the low-risk group (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.14–2.35, P = .45) (Fig. 14). Additionally, there was no significant difference between the PD group (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.83–1.22, P = .96) and the DP and local pancreatic resection group (RR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.14–1.05, P = .06) (Fig. 15).

Figure 14.

Figure 14

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis comparing octreotide with control group with the risk factor with pancreatic fistula.

Figure 15.

Figure 15

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis comparing octreotide with control group with the surgical procedures with pancreatic fistula following pancreatic resection.

3.5. Publication bias

We assessed the publication bias based on the results of PF and clinically significant PF. No evidence of publication bias existed in the studies included in the meta-analysis (Figs. 16 and 17).

Figure 16.

Figure 16

Open in a new tab

Funnel plot illustrating meta-analysis of the incidence of pancreatic fistula.

Figure 17.

Figure 17

Open in a new tab

Funnel plot illustrating meta-analysis of the incidence of clinically significant pancreatic fistula.

4. Discussion

POPF is the most frequent major complication after pancreatic resection and may lead to secondary intra-abdominal abscess formation and septic and hemorrhagic complications and even death.[32,33] Pancreatic exocrine secretions are considered a major contributor to the development of POPF after pancreatic resection. Thus, inhibition of these secretions may reduce the incidence of POPF after pancreatic resection. Octreotide is known to inhibit exocrine secretions from the pancreas and may reduce the incidence of PF after pancreatic surgery.[34,10] Since 1979, several clinical trials have evaluated the effect of octreotide and attempted to determine whether octreotide can prevent complications after pancreatic resection. However, until now, the results were still quite conflicting.

The purpose of our meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic octreotide for the prevention of complications after pancreatic resection. The present evidence suggests that prophylactic octreotide had no effective role in reducing the incidence of complications after pancreatic surgery, including the incidence of PF. The results were different from those of previous meta-analyses[35–37] that showed that the prophylactic use of octreotide could significantly reduce the incidence of some complications, especially PF. Some previous studies recommended the prophylactic use of octreotide.

Because of these different results, there are many things that need to be further discussed. First, the studies included in our meta-analysis did not use the same standard definitions of PF. In 2005, the definition of PF achieved uniformity, and POPF was graded as A, B, and C. Grade A fistulas are transient and have no clinical importance. Grade B and C fistulas have significant clinical impact, require changes in treatment and may cause an increase in morbidity and mortality.[38] In 2016, the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) redefined Grade A PF to no longer be a true PF.[39] In our study, only 3 trials used the International Study Group for Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition,[19–21] and other trials used their own definitions of PF. Therefore, potential clinical heterogeneity could not be absolutely excluded. Furthermore, lack of high-quality RCTs, different surgery procedure and experience, different preoperative nutritional status, and other reasons may also cause potential clinical heterogeneity. Second, soft texture and a non-dilated pancreatic duct are independent risk factors for POPF.[40] The study by Callery et al[41] reported that patients with ampullary, duodenal, cystic, or islet cell pathology are more likely to develop POPF than patients with pancreatic cancer or chronic pancreatitis. An explanation may be the soft pancreatic texture and non-dilated pancreatic duct in pancreases with ampullary, duodenal, cystic, or islet cell pathology. Some studies have classified postoperative patients into high-risk and low-risk groups based on the pathology of the disease, texture of the pancreas, and diameter of the pancreatic duct. These studies have shown that the prophylactic use of octreotide might decrease the incidence of PF in high-risk patients.[28,31] However, in our study, the meta-analysis of the subgroup high-risk patients showed that octreotide could not decrease the incidence of PF in these high-risk patients. Therefore, we believe that the prophylactic use of octreotide for high-risk patients should not be recommended. Third, the clinical trials included many types of pancreatic resections. There is a significantly different incidence of POPF between different types of pancreatic surgery procedures (such as PD and DP).[42] The study by Montorsi et al[29] reported that the prophylactic use of octreotide could reduce the occurrence of PF in patients who underwent DP but not in patients who underwent PD. However, the study by Suc et al[25] reported the different results, which revealed that octreotide could be useful in patients who underwent PD by pancreatojejunostomy and had a high risk of PF (a main pancreatic duct measuring <3 mm) but not in those who underwent DP. In our study, the meta-analysis of subgroups of different surgery methods showed that octreotide could not reduce the rate of PF after DP and local pancreatic resection. Therefore, additional high-quality RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of octreotide to prevent postoperative complications after DP and local pancreatic resection are needed. Fourth, different methods of anastomosis (such as pancreatojejunostomy and pancreatogastrostomy) may cause different rates of PF. Because pancreatic enzymes cannot activate in gastric tissue, the use of octreotide may be useless after pancreatogastrostomy. If octreotide can reduce the rate of PF after surgery, the reason for this effect may not be that octreotide reduces pancreatic enzyme secretion. A study by Suc et al[25] reported that the prophylactic use of octreotide can reduce the incidence of intra-abdominal complications after pancreatojejunostomy but cannot reduce the incidence of intra-abdominal complications after pancreatogastrostomy. However, this article did not further analyze the reason why octreotide reduces the incidence of complications between these 2 methods of anastomosis. Therefore, more RCTs with a greater number of patients and using the ISGPS standard PF definition and standard surgical procedures are needed to evaluate the efficacy of octreotide in different methods of anastomosis. Last but not least, the adverse effects of octreotide are worth consideration. The prophylactic use of octreotide may result in prolonged recovery time of the intestine and increase delayed gastric emptying due to decreased secretion of digestive enzymes.[43,44] Some studies have also revealed that octreotide can inhibit the anabolism of the body and suppress the secretion of tropic hormones, which may delay the healing of each anastomosis.[45,46] A study by Jenkins et al[47] showed that octreotide can decrease the volume of pancreatic juice. However, a low volume of pancreatic juice may cause a high concentration of enzymes, which may delay the healing of anastomosis sites. However, in our meta-analysis, prophylactic octreotide did not significantly prolong gastric emptying after pancreatic resection and cause other serious adverse effects. The adverse effects of octreotide were mainly minor and well tolerated. The reason for the results of this meta-analysis may be that although octreotide can reduce pancreatic exocrine secretions, octreotide can also shrink the visceral vessels and decrease gastrointestinal blood flow, which reduces the blood supply to the pancreaticointestinal anastomosis and can also reduce the secretion of growth hormone (GH).[13] These factors are not helpful for the healing of the anastomosis site and may cause other complications.

5. Conclusion

The best available evidence showed that octreotide had no influence on the incidence of PF and other complications after pancreatic resection. The prophylactic use of octreotide is not recommended. However, further high-quality RCTs to assess which subgroup of patients may benefit from prophylactic octreotide administration are urgently needed.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Qiang Huang.

Data curation: Hao Zheng, Jiwei Qin.

Formal analysis: Hao Zheng, Jiwei Qin, Ning Wang.

Investigation: Hao Zheng.

Methodology: Hao Zheng, Wanjing Chen.

Project administration: Qiang Huang.

Software: Hao Zheng, Jiwei Qin, Ning Wang, Wanjing Chen.

Supervision: Qiang Huang.

Validation: Qiang Huang.

Writing – original draft: Hao Zheng, Jiwei Qin.

Writing – review & editing: Hao Zheng, Jiwei Qin.

Footnotes

Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval, DP = distal pancreatectomy, ISGPF = International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery, MD = mean difference, PD = pancreaticoduodenectomy, PFs = pancreatic fistulas, POPF = postoperative pancreatic fistula, PPPD = pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy, RCTs = randomized controlled trials, RR = relative risk, RRs = risk ratios, SMD = standardized mean difference.

How to cite this article: Zheng H, Qin J, Wang N, Chen W, Huang Q. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of octreotide for the prevention of postoperative complications after pancreatic resection. Medicine. 2019;98:38(e17196).

HZ and JQ have contributed equally to this work as co-first authors.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  • [1].Kamisawa T, Wood LD, Itoi T, et al. Pancreatic cancer. Lancet 2016;388:73–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Gouma DJ, van Geenen RC, van Gulik TM, et al. Rates of complications and death after pancreaticoduodenectomy: risk factors and the impact of hospital volume. Ann Surg 2000;232:786–95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Sohn TA, et al. Six hundred fifty consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies in the 1990s: pathology, complications, and outcomes. Ann Surg 1997;226:248–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Bassi C, Butturini G, Molinari E, et al. Pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatic resection: the importance of definitions. Dig Surg 2004;21:54–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Cameron JL, Pitt HA, Yeo CJ, et al. One hundred and forty five consecutive pancreatico-duodenectomies without mortality. Ann Surg 1993;217:430–5. discussion 435-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Trede M, Schwall G. The complications of pancreatectomy. Ann Surg 1988;207:39–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Kemmer TP, Malfertheniner P, Buchler M, et al. Inhibition of human exocrine pancreatic secretion by the long-acting somatostatin analogue octreotide. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1992;6:41–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Petrin P, Antoniutti M, Zaramella D, et al. Effect of octreotide acetate on pancreatic exocrine and endocrine functions after pancreatoduodenal resection. Eur Surg Res 1995;27:371–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Poon RT, Fan ST. Decreasing the pancreatic leak rate after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Adv Surg 2008;42:33–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Klempa I, Schwedes U, Usadel KH. Prevention of postoperative pancreatic complications following duodenopancreatectomy using somatostatin. Chirurg 1979;50:427–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Kohler E, Beglinger C, Dettwiler S, et al. Effect of a new somatostatin analogue on pancreatic function in healthy volunteers. Pancreas 1986;2:154–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Bauer W, Briner U, Doepfner W, et al. SMS 201-995: a very potent and selective octapeptide analogue of somatostatin with prolonged action. Life Sci 1982;31:1133–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].McMillan MT, Christein JD, Callery MP, et al. Prophylactic octreotide for pancreatoduodenectomy: more harm than good? HPB (Oxford) 2014;16:954–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Gans SL, van Westreenen HL, Kiewiet JJ, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of somatostatin analogues for the treatment of pancreatic fistula. Br J Surg 2012;99:754–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Drymousis P, Pai M, Spalding D, et al. Is octreotide beneficial in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy? Best evidence topic (BET). Int J Surg 2013;11:779–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Demets DL. Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and limitations. Stat Med 1987;6:341–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].El Nakeeb A, ElGawalby A, Ali AM, et al. Efficacy of octreotide in the prevention of complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with soft pancreas and non-dilated pancreatic duct: a prospective randomized trial. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2018;17:59–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Kurumboor P, Palaniswami KN, Pramil K, et al. Octreotide does not prevent pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with soft pancreas and non-dilated duct: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Gastrointest Surg 2015;19:2038–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Fernandez-Cruz L, Jimenez CE, Taura P, et al. Prospective randomized trial of the effect of octreotide on pancreatic juice output after pancreaticoduodenectomy in relation to histological diagnosis, duct size and leakage. HPB (Oxford) 2013;15:392–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Kurumboor P, Kamalesh NP, Pramil K, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial on use of octreotide in patients with soft pancreas undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: interim analysis. HPB (Oxford) 2012;14:225. [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Kollmar O, Moussavian MR, Richter S, et al. Prophylactic octreotide and delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy: results of a prospective randomized double-blinded placebo- controlled trial. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008;34:868–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Hesse UJ, DeDecker C, Houtmeyers P, et al. Prospectively randomized trial using perioperative low-dose octreotide to prevent organ-related and general complications after pancreatic surgery and pancreatico-jejunostomy. World J Surg 2005;29:1325–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Suc B, Msika S, Piccinini M, et al. Octreotide in the prevention of intra-abdominal complications following elective pancreatic resection: a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg 2004;139:288–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD, et al. Does prophylactic octreotide decrease the rates of pancreatic fistula and other complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized placebo- controlled trial. Ann Sug 2000;232:419–29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Lowy AM, Lee JE, Pisters PW, et al. Prospective, randomized trial of octreotide to prevent pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignant disease. Ann Sug 1997;226:632–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Friess H, Beger HG, Sulkowski U, et al. Randomized controlled multicentre study of the prevention of complications by octreotide in patients undergoing surgery for chronic pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1995;82:1270–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Montorsi M, Zago M, Mosca F, et al. Efficacy of octreotide in the prevention of pancreatic fistula after elective pancreatic resections: a prospective, controlled, randomized clinical trial. Surgery 1995;117:26–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Pederzoli P, Bassi C, Falconi M, et al. Efficacy of octreotide in the prevention of complications of elective pancreatic surgery. Br J Surg 1994;81:265–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Büchler M, Friess H, Klempa I, et al. Role of octreotide in the prevention of postoperative complications following pancreatic resection. Am J Surg 1992;163:125–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Butturini G, Daskalaki D, Molinari E, et al. Pancreatic fistula: definition and current problems. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2008;15:247–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Anderson RJ, Dunki-Jacobs E, Callender GG, et al. Clinical evaluation of somatostatin use in pancreatic resections: clinical efficacy or limited benefit? Surgery 2013;154:755–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Heintges T, Lüthen R, Niederau C. Inhibition of exocrine pancreatic secretion by somatostatin and its analogues. Digestion 1994;55suppl:1–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Alghamdi AA, Jawas AM, Hart RS. Use of octreotide for the prevention of pancreatic fistula after elective pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Surg 2007;50:459–66. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Koti RS, Gurusamy KS, Fusai G, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of somatostatin analogues for pancreatic surgery: a Cochrane review. HPB (Oxford) 2010;12:155–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Wang CL, Zhao X, You SY. Efficacy of the prophylactic use of octreotide for the prevention of complications after pancreatic resection: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e7500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [38].Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 2005;138:8–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [39].Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 2017;161:584–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [40].Murakami Y, Uemura K, Hayasidani Y, et al. A soft pancreatic remnant is associated with increased drain fluid pancreatic amylase and serum CRP levels following pancreatoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:51–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [41].Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, et al. A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2012;216:1–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [42].Pratt W, Maithel SK, Vanounou T, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistulas are not equivalent after proximal, distal, and central pancreatectomy. J Gasrointest Surg 2006;10:1264–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [43].Turkcapar AG, Demirer S, Sengul N, et al. The adverse effects of octreotide on the healing of colonic anastomoses in rats. Surg Today 1998;28:279–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [44].Shan YS, Sy ED, Tsai ML, et al. Effects of somatostatin prophylaxis after pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: increased delayed gastric emptying and reduced plasma motilin. World J Surg 2005;29:1319–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [45].Konturek SJ, Dembinski A, Warzecha Z, et al. Role of epidermal growth factor in healing of chronic gastroduodenal ulcers in rats. Gastroenterology 1988;94:1300–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [46].Yildiz S, Uluutku H, Gunay A, et al. The effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on the adverse effects of octreotide on wound healing. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;16:475–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [47].Jenkins SA, Nott DM, Baxter JN. Fluctuations in the secretion of pancreatic enzymes between consecutive doses of octreotide: implications for the management of fistulae. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1995;7:255–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES