SynthesisMedicine2017
Minimally invasive surgical approach versus open procedure for pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-center propensity score matching analysis.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Assessment of surgical proficiency based on evaluating muscle activity, bimanual muscle coordination, and fatigue susceptibility in simulated laparoscopic tasks.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Spatiotemporal characteristics of eye-hand coordination among different skill levels in laparoscopic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Impact of Wound Protectors on Complications Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Analysis of 20 960 Patients.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: A bibliometric method applied to the top one hundred cited articles.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Introduction of day-case robotic liver surgery: a case series from a tertiary hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: Long-term outcome from a tertiary care centre.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2024Article
- Practice guidelines for managing extrahepatic biliary tract cancers.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2024Article
- Review
- The Marsden Morbidity Index: the derivation and validation of a simple risk index scoring system using cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables to predict morbidity in high-risk patients having major cancer surgery.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2022Article
- Surgical approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: uncomplicated ends justify the means.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Pancreatic cancer in 2021: What you need to know to win.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Long- and short-term survival following laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with periampullary tumors in Vietnam.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective study of 200 cases and the optimization of the single-center learning curve.Translational cancer research · 2021Article
- Clinical application of "Double R" anastomosis technique in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy procedure.Medicine · 2021Article
- External Retraction Technique for Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2020Article
- International expert consensus on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2020Review
- Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic outcomes and long-term survival.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal procedures. Safety and feasibility remain controversial when comparing MIPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of MIPD versus OPD.
methodsA systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD. Postoperative complications, intraoperative outcomes and oncologic data, and postoperative recovery were compared.
resultsThere were 27 studies that matched the selection criteria. Totally 1306 cases of MIPD and 5603 cases of OPD were included. MIPD was associated with a reduction in postoperative hemorrhage (odds ratio [OR] 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.49; P = .04) and wound infection (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30-0.66, P < .0001). MIPD was also associated with less estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD] -300.14 mL, 95% CI -400.11 to -200.17 mL, P < .00001), a lower transfusion rate (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61; P < .00001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.95 d, 95% CI -3.91 to -2.00 d, P < .00001) than OPD. Meanwhile, the MIPD group had a higher R0 resection rate (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.18-1.78, P = .0003) and more lymph nodes harvested (MD 1.34, 95% CI 0.14-2.53, P = .03). However, the minimally invasive approach proved to have much longer operative time (MD 71.00 minutes; 95% CI 27.01-115.00 minutes; P = .002) than OPD. Finally, there were no significant differences between the 2 procedures in postoperative pancreatic fistula (P = .30), delayed gastric emptying (P = .07), bile leakage (P = .98), mortality (P = .88), tumor size (P = .15), vascular resection (P = .68), or reoperation rate (P = .11).
conclusionsOur results suggest that MIPD is currently safe, feasible, and worthwhile. Future large-volume, well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCT) with extensive follow-up are awaited to further clarify this role.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.