Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26525207›Full record

SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2016

Parenchyma-Sparing, Limited Pancreatic Head Resection for Benign Tumors and Low-Risk Periampullary Cancer--a Systematic Review.

Hans G Beger, Benjamin Mayer, Bettina M Rau

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Unraveling Pancreatic Segmentation.World journal of surgery · 2018
    Review
  18. Benign Tumors of the Pancreas-Radical Surgery Versus Parenchyma-Sparing Local Resection-the Challenge Facing Surgeons.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2018
    Article
  19. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hans G Begerc/o University of Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, Ulm, 89081, Germany. hans@beger-ulm.de.
Benjamin MayerDepartment of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Bettina M RauDepartment of General, Thoracic, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Universität Ulm · DEUniversity of Rostock · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParenchyma-sparing local extirpation of benign tumors of the pancreatic head provides the potential benefits of preservation of functional tissue and low postoperative morbidity.

methodsMedline/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were surveyed for studies performing limited resection of the pancreatic head and resection of a segment of the duodenum and common bile duct or preservation of the duodenum and common bile duct (CBD). The systematic analysis included 27 cohort studies that reported on limited pancreatic head resections for benign tumors. In a subgroup analysis, 12 of the cohort studies were additionally evaluated to compare the postoperative morbidity after total head resection including duodenal segment resection (DPPHR-S) and total head resection conserving duodenum and CBD (DPPHR-T).

resultsThree hundred thirty-nine of a total of 503 patients (67.4%) underwent total head resections. One hundred forty-seven patients (29.2%) of them underwent segmental resection of the duodenum and CBD (DPPHR-S) and 192 patients (38.2%) underwent preservation of duodenum and CBD. One hundred sixty-four patients experienced partial head resection (32.6%). The final histological diagnosis revealed in 338 of 503 patients (67.2%) cystic neoplasms, 53 patients (10.3%) neuroendocrine tumors, and 20 patients (4.0%) low-risk periampullary carcinomas. Severe postoperative complications occurred in 62 of 490 patients (12.7%), pancreatic fistula B + C in 40 of 295 patients (13.6%), resurgery was experienced in 2.7%, and delayed gastric emptying in 12.3%. The 90-day mortality was 0.4%. The subgroup analysis comparing 143 DPPHR-S patients with 95 DPPHR-T patients showed that the respective rates of procedure-related biliary complications were 0.7% (1 of 143 patients) versus 8.4% (8 of 95 patients) (p ≤ 0.0032), and rates of duodenal complications were 0 versus 6.3% (6 of 95 patients) (p ≤ 0.0037). DPPHR-S was associated with a higher rate of delay of gastric emptying compared to DPPHR-T (18.9 vs. 2.1%, p ≤ 0.0001).

conclusionParenchyma-sparing, limited head resection for benign tumors preserves functional pancreatic and duodenal tissue and carries in terms of fistula B + C rate, resurgery, rehospitalization, and 90-day mortality a low risk of postoperative complications. A subgroup analysis exhibited after total pancreatic head resection that preserves the duodenum and CBD an association with a significant increase in procedure-related biliary and duodenal complications compared to total head resection combined with resection of the periampullary segment of the duodenum and resection of the intrapancreatic CBD.

Indexed as

Common Bile DuctDuodenumHumansPancreasPancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsPostoperative ComplicationsBenign pancreatic tumorsCystic neoplasmsDuodenum-preserving total head resectionNeuroendocrine tumorsPancreatic headParenchyma-sparing resectionTumor extirpation

Identifiers

PMID26525207
OpenAlexW1910203605

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.