Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27815701›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2017

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy-a propensity score-matched analysis from the German StuDoQ|Pancreas registry.

Ulrich Friedrich Wellner, Hryhoriy Lapshyn, Detlef K Bartsch, Ioannis Mintziras, Ulrich Theodor Hopt, Uwe Wittel, Hans-Jörg Krämling, Hubert Preissinger-Heinzel, Matthias Anthuber, Bernd Geissler and 9 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Evidence in minimally invasive surgery of the pancreas].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

19 authors.

Ulrich Friedrich WellnerClinic for Surgery, University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein, UKSH Campus Lübeck, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Hryhoriy LapshynClinic for Surgery, University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein, UKSH Campus Lübeck, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Detlef K BartschDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Ioannis MintzirasDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Ulrich Theodor HoptClinic for General and Visceral Surgery, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Uwe WittelClinic for General and Visceral Surgery, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Hans-Jörg KrämlingDepartment of General, Visceral and Vascular Surgery, Evangelical Hospital of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Hubert Preissinger-HeinzelDepartment of General, Visceral and Vascular Surgery, Evangelical Hospital of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Matthias AnthuberDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery,, Clinic Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Bernd GeisslerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery,, Clinic Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Jörg KöningerDepartment of General, Visceral, Thoracic, and Transplantation Surgery, Katharinenhospital, Clinic Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Katharina FeilhauerDepartment of General, Visceral, Thoracic, and Transplantation Surgery, Katharinenhospital, Clinic Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Merten HommannDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Central Clinic Bad Berka, Bad Berka, Germany.
Luisa PeterDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Central Clinic Bad Berka, Bad Berka, Germany.
Natascha C NüsslerDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Endocrine Surgery and Coloproctology,, Clinic Neuperlach, Munich, Germany.
Thomas KlierDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Endocrine Surgery and Coloproctology,, Clinic Neuperlach, Munich, Germany.
Ulrich MansmannInstitute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Tobias KeckClinic for Surgery, University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein, UKSH Campus Lübeck, 23538, Lübeck, Germany. tobias.keck@uksh.de.
StuDoQ Pancreas study group and members of StuDoQ|Pancreas registry of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to assess intraoperative, postoperative, and oncologic outcome in patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas.

methodsData from patients undergoing distal pancreatic resection were extracted from the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery. After propensity score case matching, groups of LDP and ODP were compared regarding demography, comorbidities, operative details, histopathology, and perioperative outcome.

resultsAt the time of data extraction, the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry included over 3000 pancreatic resections from over 50 surgical departments in Germany. Data from 353 patients undergoing ODP (n = 254) or LDP (n = 99) from September 2013 to February 2016 at 29 institutions were included in the analysis. Baseline data showed a strong selection bias in LDP patients, which disappeared after 1:1 propensity score matching. A comparison of the matched groups disclosed a significantly longer operation time, higher rate of spleen preservation, more grade A pancreatic fistula, shorter hospital stay, and increased readmissions for LDP. In the small group of patients operated for pancreatic cancer, a lower lymph node yield with a lower lymph node ratio was apparent in LDP.

conclusionsLDP needed more time but potential advantages include increased spleen preservation and shorter hospital stay, as well as a trend for less transfusion, ventilation, and mortality. LDP for pancreatic cancer was performed rarely and will need critical evaluation in the future. Data from a prospective randomized registry trial is needed to confirm these results.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPancreatectomyPropensity ScoreRegistriesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPancreatic NeoplasmsPerioperative CareTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomyOpen distal pancreatectomyStuDoQ|pancreas registry

Identifiers

PMID27815701

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.