Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26956903›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2016

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatic Surgery in Patients with Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1.

Caroline L Lopez, Max B Albers, Carmen Bollmann, Jerena Manoharan, Jens Waldmann, Volker Fendrich, Detlef K Bartsch

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Gastrinomas: Medical or Surgical Treatment.Endocrinology and metabolism clinics of North America · 2018
    Review
  12. Article
  13. [Early endocrine neoplasia of the pancreas].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2018
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Is there any role for minimally invasive surgery in NET?Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2017
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Robotic enucleation of benign pancreatic tumors.Journal of visualized surgery · 2017
    Review
  20. The treatment of hyperinsulinemic hypoglycaemia in adults: an update.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2017
    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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Caroline L LopezDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Philipps University Marburg, 35041, Baldingerstrasse, Marburg, Germany. lopez@med.uni-marburg.de.
Max B AlbersDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Philipps University Marburg, 35041, Baldingerstrasse, Marburg, Germany.
Carmen BollmannDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Philipps University Marburg, 35041, Baldingerstrasse, Marburg, Germany.
Jerena ManoharanDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Philipps University Marburg, 35041, Baldingerstrasse, Marburg, Germany.
Jens WaldmannDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Philipps University Marburg, 35041, Baldingerstrasse, Marburg, Germany.
Volker FendrichDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Philipps University Marburg, 35041, Baldingerstrasse, Marburg, Germany.
Detlef K BartschDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Philipps University Marburg, 35041, Baldingerstrasse, Marburg, Germany.
Philipps University of Marburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe role of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNENs) in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) is not well defined. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resections in patients with MEN1. MATERIALS AND

methodsProspectively collected data of MEN1 patients who underwent a primary distal pancreatic resection and/or enucleation for non-functioning pNENs or insulinoma were retrospectively analyzed regarding the outcome of minimally invasive or open pancreatic resections.

resultsThirty-three patients underwent primary pancreatic resection for either organic hyperinsulinism (n = 9, 27 %) or non-functioning pNENs >1 cm in size (n = 24, 73 %) between 1987 and 2015. 21 (64 %) patients underwent an open surgical (group 1) and 12 patients (36 %) a minimally invasive approach, either laparoscopic (n = 8) or robotic assisted (n = 4) (group 2). Both groups were comparable regarding age, gender, number, and size of pancreatic tumors. In both groups, the hyperinsulinism of all patients (9/9,100 %) could be cured and all NF-pNENs >1 cm could be resected. Group 2 had a significant shorter operative time (200 vs. 260 min; p = 0.036), less intraoperative blood loss (120 vs. 280 ml; p < 0.001), and a shorter hospital stay (11 vs. 15.5 days; p = 0.034). The rate of patients with postoperative complications, especially postoperative pancreatic fistulas, was not different between groups (62 % group 1 vs. 67 % group 2, p = 0.74).

conclusionMinimally invasive distal pancreatic resections and enucleations are feasible and safe in MEN1 patients with insulinoma or non-functioning pNENs.

Indexed as

Minimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresPancreatectomyAdolescentAdultChildFemaleHumansInsulinomaLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedMultiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1Neuroendocrine TumorsPancreatic FistulaPancreatic NeoplasmsPostoperative Complications

Identifiers

PMID26956903
OpenAlexW2294196393

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.