Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28054106›Full record

ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2017

[Range of variation of pancreaticojejunostomy in pancreatic head resection].

F C Popp, C J Bruns

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

F C PoppKlinik und Poliklinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Tumorchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Köln, Deutschland.
C J BrunsKlinik und Poliklinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Tumorchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Köln, Deutschland. christiane.bruns@uk-koeln.de.
Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leakage of pancreaticojejunostomy basically determines the morbidity and mortality of pancreatic head resection. Aggressive pancreatic juice affects the integrity of the anastomosis and the occurrence of local pancreatitis is increased due to manipulation of the pancreas during creation of the anastomosis. A multitude of anastomotic techniques have been developed aimed at minimizing the leakage rate of up to 20%. Ideal would be a simple technique that can be carried out independently of the softness of the pancreas and the diameter of the pancreatic duct. We present three anastomotic techniques: the classical duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy (Cattell-Warren anastomosis), the invagination pancreaticojejunostomy and the Blumgart anastomosis. Based on the available literature, the advantages and disadvantages of each technique are explained. The Blumgart anastomosis and the invagination pancreaticojejunostomy seem to be superior to the Cattell-Warren anastomosis; however, the available data cannot be directly compared. Currently, a prospective randomized study is being conducted to evaluate the importance of the Blumgart anastomosis.

Indexed as

Anastomosis, SurgicalAnastomotic LeakHumansPancreatic FistulaPancreatic NeoplasmsPancreaticoduodenectomyPancreaticojejunostomyPancreatitisPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Wound DehiscenceAnastomotic leakageMorbidityPancreaticoduodenectomyPancreatitisSurgical anastomosis

Identifiers

PMID28054106
OpenAlexW2570244340

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.