Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29719907›Full record

ArticleZentralblatt fur Chirurgie2018

Perioperative and Long-term Oncological Results of Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy as Hybrid Technique - A Matched Pair Analysis of 120 Cases.

Steffen Deichmann, Louisa Romina Bolm, Kim Christin Honselmann, Ulrich Friedrich Wellner, Hryhoriy Lapshyn, Tobias Keck, Dirk Bausch

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Zentralblatt fur Chirurgie, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [Evidence in minimally invasive surgery of the pancreas].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Comparison of Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Hybrid and Totally Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020
    Article
  13. Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Steffen DeichmannKlinik für Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig Holstein - Campus Lübeck, Deutschland.
Louisa Romina BolmKlinik für Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig Holstein - Campus Lübeck, Deutschland.
Kim Christin HonselmannKlinik für Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig Holstein - Campus Lübeck, Deutschland.
Ulrich Friedrich WellnerKlinik für Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig Holstein - Campus Lübeck, Deutschland.
Hryhoriy LapshynKlinik für Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig Holstein - Campus Lübeck, Deutschland.
Tobias KeckKlinik für Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig Holstein - Campus Lübeck, Deutschland.
Dirk BauschKlinik für Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig Holstein - Campus Lübeck, Deutschland.
University of Lübeck · DEUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is a highly challenging procedure. The aim of this study was to analyse post-operative morbidity and mortality as well as long term overall survival in patients undergoing hybrid LPD, as compared to open pancreaticoduodenecomy (OPD) in a single surgeon series.

methodsPatients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in the period from 2000 to 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. All LPD procedures were performed by one specialised pancreatic surgeon (TK). Patients were matched 1 : 1 for age, sex, BMI, ASA, histological diagnosis, pancreatic texture and portal venous resection (PVR). All LPD procedures were performed as hybrid LPD - combining laparoscopic resection and open reconstruction via mini laparotomy.

resultsA total of 549 patients were identified, including 489 patients in the OPD group and 60 patients in the LPD group. 60 patients were identified who underwent LPD between 2010 and 2015 versus 60 OPD patients operated in the same period. Median overall operation time was shorter in the LPD group than with OPD patients (LPD 352 vs. OPD 397 min; p = 0.002). Overall transfusion units were lower in the LPD group (LPD range 0 - 4 vs. OPD range 0 - 11; p = 0.032). Intensive care unit stay (LPD 1 vs. OPD 6 d; p = 0.008) and overall hospital stay (OHS: LPD 14 vs. OPD 18 d; p = 0.012) were shorter in the LPD groups than in the OPD group. As regards postoperative complications, LPD was associated with reduced rates of clinically relevant grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (LPD 15 vs. OPD 36%; p = 0.036) and grade B/C delayed gastric emptying (LPD 8 vs. OPD 20%; p = 0.049). A total of 56 patients were diagnosed with malignant disease. The number of harvested lymph nodes and R0-resection rates were equal for LPD and OPD patients. LPD patients showed a trend to improved median overall survival (LPD mean 56 months vs. OPD mean 48 months; p = 0.056).

conclusionHybrid LPD is a safe procedure associated with a reduction in clinically relevant postoperative complications and allows faster recovery. Long term oncological outcome of hybrid LPD for malignant disease is equal to that with the standard open approach.

Indexed as

Pancreatic NeoplasmsPancreaticoduodenectomyCohort StudiesHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMatched-Pair AnalysisOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID29719907
PMCPMC6193412
OpenAlexW2800248292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.