Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25232462›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2014

Reconstruction after pancreatoduodenectomy: Pancreatojejunostomy vs pancreatogastrostomy.

Tatiana Gómez, Ana Palomares, Mario Serradilla, Luis Tejedor

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [Pancreaticojejunostomy: duct-to-mucosa anastomosis or invagination anastomosis?]Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2019
    Article
  8. [Pancreaticojejunostomy: duct-to-mucosa anastomosis or invagination anastomosis?]Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2018
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tatiana GómezTatiana Gómez, Luis Tejedor, Department of Surgery, Hospital Punta de Europa, 11207 Algeciras (Cádiz), Spain.
Ana PalomaresTatiana Gómez, Luis Tejedor, Department of Surgery, Hospital Punta de Europa, 11207 Algeciras (Cádiz), Spain.
Mario SerradillaTatiana Gómez, Luis Tejedor, Department of Surgery, Hospital Punta de Europa, 11207 Algeciras (Cádiz), Spain.
Luis TejedorTatiana Gómez, Luis Tejedor, Department of Surgery, Hospital Punta de Europa, 11207 Algeciras (Cádiz), Spain.
Universidad de Cádiz · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pancreatic surgeons try to find the best technique for reconstruction after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in order to decrease postoperative complications, mainly pancreatic fistulas (PF). In this work, we compare the two most frequent techniques of reconstruction after PD, pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) and pancreatogastrostomy (PG), in order to determine which of the two is better. A systematic review of the literature was performed, including major meta-analysis articles, clinical randomized trials, systematic reviews, and retrospective studies. A total of 64 articles were finally included. PJ and PG are usually responsible for most of the postoperative morbidity, mainly due to the onset of PF, being considered a major trigger of life-threatening complications such as intra-abdominal abscess and hemorrhagia. The included systematic reviews reported a significant difference only in the incidence of intraabdominal collections favouring PG. PF, delayed gastric emptying and mortality were not different. Although there was heterogeneity between these studies, all were conducted in specialized centers by highly experienced surgeons, and the surgical care was likely to be similar for all the studies. The disadvantages of PG include an increased incidence of delayed gastric emptying and of main pancreatic duct obstruction due to overgrowth by the gastric mucosa. Exocrine function appears to be worse after PG than after PJ, resulting in severe atrophic changes in the remnant pancreas. Depending on the type of PJ or PG used, the PF rate and other complications can also be different. The best method to deal with the pancreatic stump after PD remains questionable. The choice of method of pancreatic anastomosis could be based on individual experience and on the surgeon's preference and adherence to basic principles such as good exposure and visualization. In conclusion, up to now none of the techniques can be considered superior or be recommended as standard for reconstruction after PD.

Indexed as

Pancreatic cancerPancreatic fistulaPancreatoduodenectomyPancreatogastrostomyPancreatojejunostomySurgical technique

Identifiers

PMID25232462
PMCPMC4163735
OpenAlexW2031576258

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.