Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29545971›Full record

ArticleCancer biology & medicine2018

Modified Blumgart anastomosis without pancreatic duct-to-jejunum mucosa anastomosis for pancreatoduodenectomy: a feasible and safe novel technique.

Xiaoqing Wang, Yang Bai, Mangmang Cui, Qingxiang Zhang, Wei Zhang, Feng Fang, Tianqiang Song

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer biology & medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Xiaoqing WangDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer; Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin; Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China.
Yang BaiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer; Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin; Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China.
Mangmang CuiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer; Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin; Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China.
Qingxiang ZhangDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer; Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin; Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China.
Wei ZhangDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer; Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin; Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China.
Feng FangDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer; Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin; Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China.
Tianqiang SongDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer; Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin; Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China.
Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study proposed a modified Blumgart anastomosis (m-BA) that uses a firm ligation of the main pancreatic duct with a supporting tube to replace the pancreatic duct-to-jejunum mucosa anastomosis, with the aim of simplifying the complicated steps of the conventional BA (c-BA). Thus, we observe if a difference in the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) exists between the two methods.

methodsThe m-BA anastomosis method has been used since 2010. From October 2011 to October 2015, 147 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) using BA in Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital were enrolled in this study. According to the type of pancreatojejunostomy (PJ), 50 patients underwent m-BA and 97 received c-BA. The two patient cohorts were compared prospectively to some extent but not randomized, and the evaluated variables were operation time, the incidence rate of POPF, and other perioperative complications.

resultsThe operation time showed no significant difference (

conclusionsCompared with the conventional BA, we suggest that the modified BA is a feasible, safe, and effective operation method for P J of PD with no sacrifice of surgical quality. In the multivariate analysis, we also found that body mass index (≥ 25 kg/m

Indexed as

modified Blumgart anastomosisPancreatoduodenectomypancreatojejunostomypostoperative complicationspostoperative pancreatic fistula

Identifiers

PMID29545971
PMCPMC5842338
OpenAlexW2789155724

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.