Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24177746›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2013

Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution case-control study.

Sven-Petter Haugvik, Bård Ingvald Røsok, Anne Waage, Oystein Mathisen, Bjørn Edwin

Abstract readCase Reports
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sven-Petter HaugvikDepartment of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, Sognsvannsveien 20, 0372, Oslo, Norway, svhaug@ous-hf.no.
Bård Ingvald Røsok
Anne Waage
Oystein Mathisen
Bjørn Edwin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is becoming increasingly established at specialized surgical institutions worldwide. The purpose of this study was to compare single-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (panLESS) with conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (panLAP) to assess feasibility and 30-day morbidity.

methodsEight consecutive patients who underwent panLESS were matched with patients who underwent panLAP in the same time period. Matching criteria were age, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Feasibility was based on tumor size, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, resection status, and hospital stay. Thirty-day morbidity was defined by the revised Accordion Classification system and the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula definition.

resultsOver a 19-month period, 8 and 16 patients were identified for panLESS and panLAP, respectively. There were no significant differences in tumor size, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, resection status, and hospital stay between the two groups. Surgical complications developed in four panLESS patients and five panLAP patients, and out of which, two patients from each group developed a postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B).

conclusionsThis study indicates that panLESS is comparable to panLAP in terms of feasibility. More experience is needed to define what role single-incision distal pancreatectomy should have in minimal invasive pancreatic surgery.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCase-Control StudiesFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedPancreatectomyPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24177746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.