Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27206401›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2016

Robotic-Assisted Pancreatic Resections.

Ugo Boggi, Niccolò Napoli, Francesca Costa, Emanuele F Kauffmann, Francesca Menonna, Sara Iacopi, Fabio Vistoli, Gabriella Amorese

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 47 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 15 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2016
    Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

8 authors.

Ugo BoggiDivision of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. u.boggi@med.unipi.it.
Niccolò NapoliDivision of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Francesca CostaDivision of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Emanuele F KauffmannDivision of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Francesca MenonnaDivision of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Sara IacopiDivision of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Fabio VistoliDivision of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Gabriella AmoreseDivision of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic assistance enhances surgical dexterity and could facilitate wider adoption of laparoscopy for pancreatic resections (PR).

methodsData were prospectively entered into a database and analyzed retrospectively to assess feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted PR (RAPR). Additionally, robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) was compared to a contemporary group of open pancreaticoduodenectomies (OPD).

resultsBetween October 2008 and October 2014, 200 consecutive patients underwent RAPR. Three procedures were converted to open surgery (1.5 %), despite 14 patients required associated vascular procedures. RAPD was performed in 83 patients (41.5 %), distal pancreatectomy in 83 (41.5 %), total pancreatectomy in 17 (8.5 %), tumor enucleation in 12 (6 %), and central pancreatectomy in 5 (2.5 %). Thirty-day and 90-day mortality rates were 0.5 and 1 %, respectively. Both deaths occurred after RAPD with vein resection. Complications occurred in 63.0 % of the patients (≥Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb in 4 %). Median comprehensive complication index was 20.9 (0-26.2). Incidence of grade B/C pancreatic fistula was 28.0 %. Reoperation was required in 14 patients (7.0 %). The risk of reoperation decreased after post-operative day 20 (OR 0.072) (p = 0.0015). When compared to OPD, RAPD was associated with longer mean operative time (527.2 ± 166.1 vs. 425.3 ± 92.7; <0.0001) but had an equivalent safety profile. The median number of examined lymph nodes (37; 28.8-45.3 vs. 36; 28-52.8) and the rate of margin positivity in patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer were also similar (12.5 vs. 45.5 %).

conclusionsRAPR, including RAPD, are safely feasible in selected patients. The results of RAPD in pancreatic cancer are encouraging but deserve further investigation.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overConversion to Open SurgeryFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLymph NodesMaleMargins of ExcisionMiddle AgedOperative TimePancreatectomyPancreatic Fistula

Identifiers

PMID27206401

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.