Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31489304›Full record

ReviewHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2019

International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery.

Rong Liu, Go Wakabayashi, Chinnusamy Palanivelu, Allan Tsung, Kehu Yang, Brian K P Goh, Charing Ching-Ning Chong, Chang Moo Kang, Chenghong Peng, Eli Kakiashvili and 16 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06557408 (Factors Influencing the Occurrence of Pancreatic Fistula After Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Enucleation and Predictive Models), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06557408 completednot on this map

Factors Influencing the Occurrence of Pancreatic Fistula After Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Enucleation and Predictive Models: a Prospective Cohort Study

TypeobservationalSponsorFudan UniversityRan2019 to 2024Enrolled173ConditionsPancreatic Tumor, Benign, Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor, Solid Pseudopapillary Tumor of the Pancreas
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Initiation of a robotic pancreatoduodenectomy program using virtual collaboration.HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

Rong LiuDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgical Oncology, Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China.
Go WakabayashiCenter for Advanced Treatment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases, Ageo Central General Hospital, Ageo, Japan.
Chinnusamy PalaniveluDivision of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Minimal Access Surgery, GEM Hospital and Research Centre, Coimbatore, India.
Allan TsungDivision of Surgical Oncology, Gastrointestinal Disease Specific Research Group, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Department of Surgery, Columbus, OH, USA.
Kehu YangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Brian K P GohDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Charing Ching-Ning ChongDepartment of Surgery, Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Chang Moo KangDivision of HBP Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Pancreatobiliary Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Chenghong PengPancreatic Disease Centre, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200025, China.
Eli KakiashviliDepartment of General Surgery, Galilee Medical Center, Nahariya, Israel.
Ho-Seong HanDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Hong-Jin KimDepartment of Surgery, Yeungnam University Hospital, Daegu, Korea.
Jin HeDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jae Hoon LeeDivision of Hepatobiliary & Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Kyoichi TakaoriDepartment of Surgery, Kyoto University Hospital, Shogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, Japan.
Marco Vito MarinoDepartment of General Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera, Ospedali Riuniti Villa Sofia-Cervello, Palermo, Italy.
Shen-Nien WangDivision of General and Digestive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung.
Tiankang GuoDepartment of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou 730030, China.
Thilo HackertDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ting-Shuo HuangDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Keelung.
Yiengpruksawan AnusakMinimally Invasive Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Yuman FongDepartment of Surgery, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA.
Yuichi NagakawaDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Yi-Ming ShyrDepartment of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital and National Yang Ming University, Taipei.
Yao-Ming WuDepartment of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei.
Yupei ZhaoDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The robotic surgical system has been applied to various types of pancreatic surgery. However, controversies exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic pancreatic surgery and put forth experts' consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group* and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 19 topics were analyzed. The first 16 recommendations were generated by GRADE using an evidence-based method (EBM) and focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques, certification of the robotic surgeon, and cost-effectiveness of robotic pancreatic surgery. The remaining three recommendations were based on literature review and expert panel opinion due to insufficient EBM results. Since the current amount of evidence was low/meager as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed in the future to validate these recommendations.

Indexed as

consensus statementpancreatectomypancreatic enucleationpancreaticoduodenectomyRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID31489304
PMCPMC6700012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.