Meta-analysis of subtotal stomach-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy vs pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies

Ref.	Country	Year	Design	Group	n	Sex (M/F)	Age1	Benign/malignant	Quality score
Hayashibe et al[17]	Japan	2007	Retro	PPPD	12	4/8	60.9 ± 8.5	0/12	1 (McKay)
				SSPPD	21	8/13	64.3 ± 9.5	1/20
Akizuki et al[27]	Japan	2008	PNR	PPPD	34	20/14 18/12	66 (28-78)	15/19	2 (McKay)
				SSPPD	30		65 (39-79)	4/26
Kurahara et al[28]	Japan	2010	Retro	PPPD	48	26/22 38/26	64.4	18/30	1 (McKay)
				SSPPD	64		66.8	11/53
Oida et al[30]	Japan	2011	Retro	PPPD	25	21/4	66.2 ± 4.7	0/25	1 (McKay)
				SSPPD	42	30/12	65.8 ± 5.8	0/42
Kawaiet al[29]	Japan	2011	RCT	PPPD	64	33/31 38/28	68 ± 9	12/52	3 (Jadad)
				SSPPD	66		67 ± 9	14/52
Fujii et al[31]	Japan	2012	Retro	PPPD	33	19/14	63.8 (35-83)	0/33	1 (McKay)
				SSPPD	56	28/28	64.6 (41-84)	0/56
Nanashima et al[33]	Japan	2013	Retro	PPPD	28	21/7	68 ± 8	7/21	1 (McKay)
				SSPPD	27	15/12	66 ± 12	5/22
Matsumoto et al[35]	Japan	2014	RCT	PPPD	50	29/21 35/15	66 ± 10	18/32	3 (Jadad)
				SSPPD	50		67 ± 9	21/29

¹Mean ± SD, standard deviation or Median and range. Retro: Retrospective observational study; PNR: Prospective nonrandomized observational study; RCT: Randomized controlled trial; SSPPD: Subtotal stomach-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy; PPPD: Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy.