Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29493784›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of surgery2018

Propensity score-matched comparison of oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatic resection.

M Raoof, P H G Ituarte, Y Woo, S G Warner, G Singh, Y Fong, L Melstrom

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Optimizing the outcomes of pancreatic cancer surgery.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2019
    Review
  19. 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

7 authors.

M RaoofDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Road, MOB.L002, Duarte, California, 91016, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4710-2226
P H G ItuarteDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Road, MOB.L002, Duarte, California, 91016, USA.
Y WooDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Road, MOB.L002, Duarte, California, 91016, USA.
S G WarnerDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Road, MOB.L002, Duarte, California, 91016, USA.
G SinghDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Road, MOB.L002, Duarte, California, 91016, USA.
Y FongDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Road, MOB.L002, Duarte, California, 91016, USA.
L MelstromDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Road, MOB.L002, Duarte, California, 91016, USA.

Funding

Oncology Research Career Development ProgramK12CA001727 · NCI · CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER · PI MORTIMER, JOANNE E. · 1992 to 2024
$14.6M
NCI NIH HHS K12 CA001727
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelected studies have reported improved outcomes in laparoscopic compared with open distal pancreatic resection. Concerns regarding failure to achieve proper oncological resection and compromised long-term outcomes remain. This study investigated whether postoperative outcomes and long-term survival after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are comparable to those after an open procedure.

methodsThis retrospective case-control study included patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2013, identified from the National Cancer Database. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1 : 1 matching was performed between patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy based on all relevant co-variables. The primary outcome was overall survival.

resultsOf 1947 eligible patients, 605 (31·1 per cent) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. After propensity score matching, two well balanced groups of 563 patients each were analysed. There was no difference in overall survival at 3 years after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (41·6 versus 36·0 per cent; hazard ratio 0·93, 95 per cent c.i. 0·77 to 1·12; P = 0·457). The overall conversion rate was 27·3 per cent (165 of 605). Patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had outcomes comparable to those of patients who had an open procedure with regard to median time to chemotherapy (50 versus 50 days; P = 0·342), median number of nodes examined (12 versus 12; P = 0·759); 30-day mortality (1·2 versus 0·9 per cent; P = 0·562); 90-day mortality (2·8 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·403), 30-day readmission rate (9·6 versus 9·2 per cent; P = 0·838) and positive margin rate (14·9 versus 18·5 per cent; P = 0·110). However, median duration of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 versus 7 days; P < 0·001).

conclusionLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is an acceptable alternative to open distal pancreatectomy with no detriment to survival.

Indexed as

Propensity ScoreAdenocarcinomaAgedAged, 80 and overCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLaparotomyMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsPostoperative PeriodRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID29493784
PMCPMC7938843

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.