Imaging of paraduodenal pancreatitis: A systematic review

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies

Ref.	Year	Journal type	Aim	Inclusion period	Study design	Patients considered for inclusion	Paraduodenal pancreatitis patients included	Limitations
Ishigami et al[17]	2010	Radiological	Differential diagnosis cancer vs paraduodenal pancreatitis	2001-2008	Retrospective, single center	Institutional database search using “groove pancreatitis or groove pancreatic carcinoma” (n = 22)	15	Small population, no clear distinction between computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging findings
Kalb et al[18]	2013	Radiological	Differential diagnosis cancer vs paraduodenal pancreatitis	2007-2010	Retrospective, single center	Institutional database search using “Whipple and/or pancreatectomy” and diagnosis of cancer or paraduodenal pancreatitis (n = 47)	17	Surgically resected patients only, small population
Zaheer et al[19]	2014	Radiological	Findings description	2002-2013	Retrospective, single center	Patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy and histological paraduodenal pancreatitis diagnosis (n = 12)	12	Surgically resected patients only, small population
Arvanitakis et al[11]	2014	Gastroenterological	Endoscopic and medical management	1995-2010	Retrospective, single center	Institutional database search using “paraduodenal pancreatitis” (n = 51)	51	Poor imaging findings description based on radiological reports
Wagner et al[20]	2015	Radiological	Findings description	"14 yr"	Retrospective, single center	Patients with cystic dystrophy in heterotopic pancreas diagnosis at endoscopic ultrasound (n = 138)	76	Only cystic variant of paraduodenal pancreatitis included
Arora et al[3]	2015	Radiological	Findings description	2010-2014	Retrospective, single center	Patients treated for paraduodenal pancreatitis at gastroenterology or surgical units (n = 33)	33	Poor imaging findings description based on radiological reports, no clear distinction between computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging findings
Shin et al[21]	2016	Radiological	Differential diagnosis cancer vs paraduodenal pancreatitis	2005-2011	Retrospective, 2 centers	Multidetector computed tomography for pancreas protocols (n = 2561) with groove mass	8	Surgically resected patients only, small population
Boninsegna et al[22]	2017	Radiological	Differential diagnosis cancer vs paraduodenal pancreatitis	2012-2015	Retrospective, single center	Abdominal Magnetic Resonance Imaging with groove mass	28	None
de Pretis et al[2]	2017	Multidisciplinary	Clinical and morphological features	1994-2012	Retrospective, single center	Patients with diagnosis of paraduodenal pancreatitis (n = 120)	120	Poor imaging findings description based on radiological reports, no clear distinction between computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging findings
Muraki et al[9]	2017	Surgical	Imaging and pathologic correlation	2004-2015	Retrospective, single center	All pancreatic resections	47	Surgically resected patients only, poor imaging findings description, no clear distinction between computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging findings
Tarvainen et al[16]	2021	Multidisciplinary	Diagnosis, natural course and treatment	2005-2015	Retrospective, multicentric	Institutional database search using “groove and/or paraduodenal” (n = 192)	33	Poor imaging findings description, no clear distinction between computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging findings
Ooka et al[7]	2021	Gastroenterological	Clinical management	2000-2014	Retrospective, single center	Institutional database search using “groove pancreatitis and/or paraduodenal pancreatitis” (n = 211)	48	No clear distinction between computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging findings
Değer et al[15]	2022	Surgical	Clinical features and outcome	2013-2019	Retrospective, single center	Institutional database search using “groove and/or paraduodenal” (n = 28)	25	Poor imaging findings description based on radiological reports, no clear distinction between computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging findings
Kulkarni et al[12]	2022	Radiological	Findings description	2007-2020	Retrospective, single center	Patients with pancreatitis (n = 2120)	30	None

Table 2 Risk of bias assessment

Ref.	Representativeness of the exposed cohort	Selection of the non-exposed cohort	Ascertainment of exposure	Outcome of interest was not present at start of study	Comparability of cohorts	Assessment of outcome	Follow-up long enough	Adequacy of follow up	Total
Ishigami et al[17]	±	-	-	-	-	-	NA	NA	6
Kalb et al[18]	±	-	-	-	-	-	NA	NA	6
Zaheer et al[19]	±	NA	-	+	NA	-	NA	NA	2
Arvanitakis et al[11]	±	NA	±	+	NA	-	-	-	3
Wagner et al[20]	+	NA	±	-	NA	+	NA	NA	1
Arora et al[3]	±	NA	±	+	NA	-	-	-	3
Shin et al[21]	±	-	-	-	±	-	NA	NA	4
Boninsegna et al[22]	-	±	-	-	±	-	NA	NA	4
de Pretis et al[2]	-	NA	-	-	NA	-	-	-	6
Muraki et al[9]	-	-	-	-	-	-	NA	NA	7
Tarvainen et al[16]	±	±	-	-	-	-	-	-	6
Ooka et al[7]	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	9
Değer et al[15]	-	NA	-	-	NA	-	-	-	6
Kulkarni et al[12]	-	NA	-	-	NA	-	NA	NA	4

-: Low risk of bias; ±: Unknown risk of bias; +: High risk of bias; NA: Not appliable.

Table 3 Variables evaluated in the included studies

Ref.	Duodenal wall thickening	Thickening distribution	Duodenal wall enhancement	Duodenal wall cysts	Cysts number	Cysts size	Pancreatic mass	Signal intensity on T2-weighted images	Signal intensity on T1-weighted images, diffusion-weighted images, apparent diffusion coefficient map	Arterial phase enhancement	Portal venous phase enhancement
Ishigami et al[17]				+				+
Kalb et al[18]	+		+	+		1
Zaheer et al[19]	1, 2	1		1			1, 2			1	1
Arvanitakis et al[11]	2			+, 2	+, 2
Wagner et al[20]	1, 2			+, 1, 2	1	1
Arora et al[3]	+, 1		+, 1	+, 1
Shin et al[21]	1										1
Boninsegna et al[22]	+							+	+	+	+
de Pretis et al[2]
Muraki et al[9]						+
Tarvainen et al[16]
Ooka et al[7]	1						1
Değer et al[15]	+, 1			+, 1			1
Kulkarni et al[12]	1		1	1

+: Described at MRI; 1: Described at CT; 2: Described at EUS; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound; CT: Computed tomography.

Table 4 Variables evaluated in the included studies

Ref.	Delayed enhancement	Enhancement pattern	Pancreatic cysts	Main pancreatic duct dilatation	Pancreatic calcifications	Biliary duct dilatation	Portal vein stenosis	Gastroduodenal artery displacement	Peripancreatic fat stranding	Peripancreatic lymph nodes
Ishigami et al[17]		+		+	1	+
Kalb et al[18]			+	+		+	+
Zaheer et al[19]			2	1	1	1			1	1
Arvanitakis et al[11]				+, 1	1	+, 1
Wagner et al[20]				+, 1	1	+, 1			1
Arora et al[3]			+, 1	+, 1	1	+, 1		+, 1
Shin et al[21]		1	1	1	1	1		1		1
Boninsegna et al[22]	+		+	+		+
de Pretis et al[2]					1
Muraki et al[9]			+	+		+, 1
Tarvainen et al[16]			+, 1	+, 1	1	+, 1
Ooka et al[7]			1	1	1				1
Değer et al[15]				+, 1
Kulkarni et al[12]			1	1	1	1		1

+: Described at MRI; 1: Described at CT; 2: Described at EUS; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound; CT: Computed tomography.