ArticleCancer medicine2019
Safety and effectiveness of the da Vinci robot with the "3+2" mode for distal pancreatectomy.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic distal gastrectomy using a novel pre-emptive supra-pancreatic approach without duodenal transection in the dissection of D2 lymph nodes for gastric cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Da Vinci robot-assisted retroperitoneal tumor resection in 105 patients: a single-center experience.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Safety and effectiveness of the da Vinci robot with the "3+2" mode for distal pancreatectomy.Cancer 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
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, no relevant research has focused on the relationship between the clinical efficacy of da Vinci robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the number of mechanical arms and assistants used for RDP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and advantages of RDP with the "3 + 2" mode.
methodsClinical data from 53 patients (observation group) who received RDP using the "3 + 2" mode in our department, from March 2016 to September 2018, were reviewed. An additional 53 patients who received RDP using the classical mode were chosen at random for the control group. Short-term outcomes for the two groups were compared.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for estimated blood loss, postoperative day of flatus passage, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complication (P > 0.05). Compared with the control group, the observation group had a significantly shorter operative time (166.9 ± 13.3 vs 192.6 ± 11.1 minutes, P < 0.001), lower surgical costs ($2827.79 ± $173.02 vs $3900.63 ± $317.29, P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe RDP using the "3 + 2" mode can increase the exposure of surgical field, improve cooperation between assistants, lower the surgical costs, and shorten the operative time and learning curve. Moreover, the clinical effect is equal to that of RDP using the classical mode. These findings indicate that RDP using the "3 + 2" mode is safe and feasible for institutions that are equipped for robot-assisted surgery.
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.