Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25783837›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2015

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: single-surgeon experience.

Mingjun Wang, Hua Zhang, Zhong Wu, Zhaoda Zhang, Bing Peng

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Mingjun WangDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Hua ZhangDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Zhong WuDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Zhaoda ZhangDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Bing PengDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. wmjjmw01pb@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInnovations in surgical strategies and technologies have facilitated laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). However, data regarding the short-term and long-term results of LPD are sparse, and this procedure is the primary focus of the current study.

methodsBetween October 2010 and October 2013, a total of 31 consecutive patients received LPD, including hand-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, and laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. Data regarding short-term surgical outcomes and long-term oncological results were collected prospectively.

resultsThe median operative time was 515.0 min (interquartile range 465.0-585.0 min). The median intraoperative estimated blood loss was 260.0 mL (interquartile range 150.0-430.0 mL). Conversion to open pancreaticoduodenectomy was required in three patients (9.7%) due to intraoperative pneumoperitoneum intolerance (n = 1, 3.2%) and tumor adherence to the superior mesenteric vein (n = 2, 6.5%). No significant differences between the surgical approaches were observed in regard to intraoperative and postoperative data. Postoperative severe complications (Clavien ≥ III) were detected in three (9.7%) patients, including one grade C pancreatic fistula, one grade B postoperative bleeding event, and one afferent loop obstruction. There were no deaths within 30 days following LPD. The final pathological results revealed duodenal adenocarcinoma in 14 (45.2%) patients, ampullary adenocarcinoma in four (12.9%) patients, distal common bile duct cancer in six (19.4%) patients, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in five (16.1%) patients, gastrointestinal stroma tumor in one (3.2%) patient, and chronic pancreatitis in one (3.2%) patient. All patients suffering from tumors underwent R0 resection (n = 30, 100.0%), with the optimal number of collected lymph nodes (median: 13, interquartile range 11-19). At the most recent follow-up, 20 patients were still alive, and the 1-, and 3-year overall survival for patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma were 100.0 and 71.4%, respectively.

conclusionsAccording to this study, LPD is feasible and technically safe for highly selected patients and can offer acceptable oncological outcomes and long-term survival.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDuodenal NeoplasmsFeasibility StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePancreatic NeoplasmsPancreaticoduodenectomyPancreatitis, ChronicLaparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomyOncologySurvival

Identifiers

PMID25783837

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.