ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2015
A comparison of two invagination techniques for pancreatojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy.
Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A new method of pancreaticojejunostomy in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective analysis of 93 cases.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2025Article
- Novel Non-duct-to-Mucosa Pancreaticojejunostomy Reconstruction After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Focus on the Occurrence of Post-pancreatectomy Hemorrhage and Intra-abdominal Abscess.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Single Center, Propensity Score Matching Analysis of Different Reconstruction Techniques following Pancreatoduodenectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Pancreaticojejunostomy-a review of modern techniques.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. The aim of the study was to compare two invagination techniques for pancreatojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy. Methods. For effective prevention of the development of pancreatic leakage, we modified invagination technique that we term the "serous touch." We analysed the diameter of the main pancreatic duct, the texture of the remnant pancreas, the method of the reconstruction, pancreatic external drainage, anastomotic procedure time, histopathological examination, and postoperative complications. Results. Fifty-two patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatojejunostomy using "serous touch" technique (ST group) and 52 classic pancreatojejunostomy (C group). In the ST group one patient (1.9%) was diagnosed as grade B pancreatic fistula, and no patient experienced fistula grade A or C. In the C group 6 patients (11.5%) were diagnosed as fistula grade A, 1 (1.9%) patient as fistula grade B, and 1 (1.9%) patient as fistula grade C. There was a significant statistical difference in incidents of pancreatic fistula (P < 0.05) and no statistical difference in other postoperative complications or mortality in comparison group. Anastomosis time was statistically shorter in the ST group. Conclusions. "Serous touch" technique appeared to be easy, safe, associated with fewer incidences of pancreatic fistulas, and less time consuming in comparison with classical pancreatojejunostomy.
Identifiers
What 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.