Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29396754›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2018

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a French prospective single-center experience and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Regis Souche, Astrid Herrero, Guillaume Bourel, John Chauvat, Isabelle Pirlet, Françoise Guillon, David Nocca, Frederic Borie, Gregoire Mercier, Jean-Michel Fabre

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. [Robotic pancreatic surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Observational
  16. Review
  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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Regis SoucheDigestive and Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, Department of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Saint Eloi Hospital, University of Montpellier, 80 Avenue Augustin Fliche, 34295, Montpellier, France. frsouche@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1961-5844
Astrid HerreroDigestive and Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, Department of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Saint Eloi Hospital, University of Montpellier, 80 Avenue Augustin Fliche, 34295, Montpellier, France.
Guillaume BourelMedical Information Department, La Colombière Hospital, University of Montpellier, 39 Avenue Charles Flahault, 34295, Montpellier, France.
John ChauvatDigestive and Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, Department of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Saint Eloi Hospital, University of Montpellier, 80 Avenue Augustin Fliche, 34295, Montpellier, France.
Isabelle PirletDigestive and Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, Department of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Saint Eloi Hospital, University of Montpellier, 80 Avenue Augustin Fliche, 34295, Montpellier, France.
Françoise GuillonDigestive and Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, Department of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Saint Eloi Hospital, University of Montpellier, 80 Avenue Augustin Fliche, 34295, Montpellier, France.
David NoccaDigestive and Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, Department of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Saint Eloi Hospital, University of Montpellier, 80 Avenue Augustin Fliche, 34295, Montpellier, France.
Frederic BorieDigestive Surgery Department, Carémeau Hospital, University of Montpellier, Place du Professeur Debré, 30900, Nîmes, France.
Gregoire MercierMedical Information Department, La Colombière Hospital, University of Montpellier, 39 Avenue Charles Flahault, 34295, Montpellier, France.
Jean-Michel FabreDigestive and Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, Department of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Saint Eloi Hospital, University of Montpellier, 80 Avenue Augustin Fliche, 34295, Montpellier, France.
Hôpital Saint Eloi · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nîmes · FRInstitut de Recherche en Cancérologie de Montpellier · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBenefits and cost-effectiveness of robotic approach for distal pancreatectomy (DP) remain debated. In this prospective study, we aim to compare the short-term results and real costs of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

methodsFrom 2011 until 2016, all consecutive patients underwent minimally invasive DP were included and data were prospectively collected. Patients were assigned in two groups, RDP and LDP, according to the availability of the Da Vinci® Surgical System for our Surgical Unit.

resultsA minimally invasive DP was performed in 38 patients with a median age of 61 years old (44-83 years old) and a BMI of 26 kg/m

conclusionShort-term results of RDP seem to be similar to LDP but the high cost of RDP makes this approach not cost-effective actually.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFranceHospital CostsHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePancreatectomyPancreatic DiseasesProspective StudiesCostsDistal pancreatectomyLaparoscopyLeft pancreatectomyPancreatic surgeryRobot-assisted surgeryRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID29396754
OpenAlexW2787283342

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.