Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30114321›Full record

ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2018

Oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Analysis of the National Cancer Database.

Mustafa Raoof, Carolijn L M A Nota, Laleh G Melstrom, Susanne G Warner, Yanghee Woo, Gagandeep Singh, Yuman Fong

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. RoboticFrontiers in oncology · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [Robotic pancreatic surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Strengths and Limitations of Registries in Surgical Oncology Research.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021
    Review
  20. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Mustafa RaoofDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4710-2226
Carolijn L M A NotaDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
Laleh G MelstromDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6279-7981
Susanne G WarnerDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4329-7943
Yanghee WooDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6676-0593
Gagandeep SinghDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
Yuman FongDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
City Of Hope National Medical Center · US

Funding

Oncology Research Career Development ProgramK12CA001727 · NCI · CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER · PI MORTIMER, JOANNE E. · 1992 to 2024
$14.6M
National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health NIH 5K12CA001727-20NCI NIH HHS K12 CA001727Stichting Jo Kolk Studiefonds
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHow the oncologic outcomes after robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) compare to those after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) remains unknown.

methodsUsing the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we analyzed all patients undergoing LDP or RDP for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma over a 4-year period (2010-2013).

resultsOf the 704 eligible patients, 605 (86%) underwent LDP and 99 (14%) underwent RDP. The median follow-up for patients was 25 months. There were no differences in the two groups with respect to sociodemographic, clinicopathologic, or treatment characteristics. On comparing LDP versus RDP, there was no difference in the margin-positive rate (15% vs 16%; P = 0.84); lymph nodes examined (12 vs 11; P = 0.67); overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1, 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.7 to 1.7; 28 vs 25 months; P = 0.71); hospital stay (6 vs 5 days; P = 0.14); time to chemotherapy (50 vs 52 days; P = 0.65); 30-day readmission (9.4% vs 9.1%; P = 0.92); and mortality (1% vs 0%; P = 0.28). Patients undergoing LDP had a significantly higher conversion rate to open or minimally invasive pancreatic cancer resections compared with RDP (27% vs 10%; P < 0.001).

conclusionThe early national experience with RDP demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes to LDP, with a significantly lower conversion rate.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualAdenocarcinomaFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLaparoscopyMaleMargins of ExcisionMiddle AgedPancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurvival RateTreatment Outcomelaparoscopyminimally invasive surgerypancreatic ductal adenocarcinomapancreatic resectionrobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID30114321
PMCPMC6386178
OpenAlexW2886222989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.