ArticleIl Giornale di chirurgia
Laparoscopic ultrasound: a surgical "must" for second line intra-operative evaluation of pancreatic cancer resectability.
Article in Il Giornale di chirurgia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02879058 (The Effect of Intraoperative Contact Sonography on Quality of Life Following Laparoscopic or Robotic Myomectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
The Effect of Intraoperative Contact Sonography on Quality of Life Following Laparoscopic or Robotic Myomectomy
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraoperative Ultrasound During Surgical Exploration in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer and Vascular Involvement (ULTRAPANC): A Prospective Multicenter Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Current controversies and advances in the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
- Radiologically occult metastatic pancreatic cancer: how can we avoid unbeneficial resection?Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Article
- The Additional Value of Laparoscopic Ultrasound to Staging Laparoscopy in Patients with Suspected Pancreatic Head Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvanced laparoscopy for pancreatic cancer surgery should include laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS), in order to accurately evaluate resectability and rule out the presence of undetected metastases and/or vascular infiltration. LUS should be done as a preliminary step whenever pre-operative imaging casts doubts on resectability. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe hereby report our experience of 18 consecutive patients, aged 43-76, coming to our attention during a six months period (Jan-Jun 2013), with a diagnosis of pancreas head or body cancer.
resultsLUS allowed to rule out undetected metastases or mesenteric vessels infiltration in 11 patients (61.1%), who were submitted, as previously scheduled, to radical duodeno-pancreatectomy (9 cases) and spleno-caudal pancreatectomy (2 cases). Among the remaining patients, three had been correctly evaluated as non resectable radically at pre-operative work out, and confirmed at LUS, while LUS detected non resectable disease in further 4 patients (22.2%), who underwent palliative procedures. In 2 patients of this group liver micro-metastases were found, while 2 were excluded because of mesenteric vessels infiltration.
conclusionsLUS provided a higher level of diagnostic accuracy, allowing in our experience to exclude 4 patients from radical surgery (22.2%). The evaluation of surgical resectability is an issue of crucial importance to decide surgical strategy in pancreas tumor surgery. In our opinion LUS should be considered a mandatory step in laparoscopic approach to pancreatic tumors, to better define disease staging and evaluate resectability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25827662PMC4396667What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.