Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28812160›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018

Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis based on factors predictive of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Niccolò Napoli, Emanuele F Kauffmann, Francesca Menonna, Francesca Costa, Sara Iacopi, Gabriella Amorese, Serena Giorgi, Angelo Baggiani, Ugo Boggi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Niccolò NapoliDivision 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.
Francesca CostaDivision of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Sara IacopiDivision of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Gabriella AmoreseDivision of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Serena GiorgiDivision of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Angelo BaggianiDivision of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Ugo BoggiDivision of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. u.boggi@med.unipi.it.ORCID 0000-0002-7505-5896
University of Pisa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImprovement in morbidity of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) largely depends on the reduction in the incidence of clinically relevant (CR) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

methodsAfter internal validation of the clinical risk score (CRS) of POPF, and identification of other predictive factors for POPF, robotic (RPD), and open (OPD) PDs were stratified into risk categories and matched by propensity scores. The primary endpoint of this study was incidence of CR-POPF. Secondary endpoints were 90-day morbidity and mortality, and sample size calculation for randomized controlled trials (RCT).

resultsNo patient undergoing RPD was classified at negligible risk for POPF, and no CR-POPF occurred in 7 RPD at low risk. The matching process identified 48 and 11 pairs at intermediate and high risk for POPF, respectively. In the intermediate-risk group, RPD was associated with higher rates of CR-POPF (31.3% vs 12.5%) (p = 0.0026), with equivalent incidence of grade C POPF. In the high-risk group, CR-POPF occurred frequently, but in similar percentages, after either procedures. Starting from an unadjusted point estimate of the effect size of 1.71 (0.91-3.21), the pair-matched odds ratio for CR-POPF after RPD was 2.80 (1.01-7.78) for the intermediate-risk group, and 0.20 (0.01-4.17) for the high-risk group. Overall morbidity and mortality were equivalent in matched study groups. Sample size calculation for a non-inferiority RCT demonstrated that a total of 31,669 PDs would be required to randomize 682 patients at intermediate risk and 1852 patients at high risk.

conclusionsIn patients at intermediate risk, RPD is associated with higher rates of CR-POPF. Incidence of grade C POPF is similar in RPD and OPD, making overall morbidity and mortality also equivalent. A RCT, with risk stratification for POPF, would require an enormous number of patients. Implementation of an international registry could be the next step in the assessment of RPD.

Indexed as

PancreaticoduodenectomyPropensity ScoreRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPancreasPancreatic FistulaPostoperative ComplicationsRisk FactorsOpen pancreatoduodenectomyPancreatoduodenectomyPostoperative pancreatic fistulaPropensity scoreRobotic pancreatoduodenectomy

Identifiers

PMID28812160
OpenAlexW2745993402

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.