ReviewWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2018
Long term oncological outcome of laparoscopic techniques in pancreatic cancer.
Review in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: Long-term outcome from a tertiary care centre.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2024Article
- Exploring the Surgical Outcomes of Pancreatic Cancer Resections Performed in Low- Versus High-Volume Centers.Cureus · 2023Article
- Learning curve of three European centers in laparoscopic, hybrid laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted) versus open approach for central pancreatectomies: a single-center experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Current statement and safe implementation of minimally invasive surgery in the pancreas.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020Review
- Open and Minimal Approaches to Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2020Review
- The role of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy-how take care of patient security?Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The laparoscopic technique in distal pancreatic resection (LDP) has been widely accepted, and outcome data support the hypothesis that survival is improved, partly due to improved postoperative safety and recovery, thus optimizing treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy. But laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD or Whipple-procedures) has spread more slowly, due to the complexity of the procedure. Surgical safety has been a problem in hospitals with low patient volume, resulting in raised postoperative mortality, requiring careful monitoring of outcome during the surgical learning curve. Robotic assistance is expected to improve surgical safety, but data on long term oncological outcome of laparoscopic Whipple procedures with or without robotic assistance is scarce. Future research should still focus surgical safety, but most importantly long term outcome, recorded as recurrence at maximal follow up or - at best - overall long term survival (OS). Available data show median survival above 2.5 years, five year OS more than 30% after LDP even in series with suboptimal adjuvant chemotherapy. Also after LPD, long term survival is reported equal to or longer than open resection. However, surgical safety during the learning curve of LPD is a problem, which hopefully can be facilitated by robotic assistance. Patient reported outcome should also be an endpoint in future trials, including patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.