ArticleHPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association2020
Lending a hand for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: the optimal approach?
Article in HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic Versus Hand-Assisted Distal Pancreatectomy: A Comparative Single Center Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBoth minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open approaches for distal pancreatectomy are acceptable. MIS options include total laparoscopic/robotic (TLR) and hand-assist laparoscopy (HAL). When considering safety profile and specimen quality, the optimal approach is unknown.
methodsPatients who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2010-2018 at two major academic institutions were included. Converted procedures were categorized into final approach. Ninety-day perioperative/pathologic outcomes of MIS and open were compared. Subset analyses between TLR vs HAL and HAL vs open were performed. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed.
resultsAmong 1006 patients, resection was performed by MIS in 35% (n = 352), open in 65% (n = 654). MIS had similar patient comorbidity profile as open but had increased operative time (183 vs 162 min; p < 0.01), lower estimated-blood-loss (EBL; 131 vs 341 mL; p < 0.01), fewer intraoperative blood transfusions (1.4 vs 5%; p < 0.01), shorter LOS (5.2 vs 7.2 days; p < 0.01). Tumor size was smaller (3.2 vs 4.4 cm; p < 0.01) with lower lymph node (LN) yield (14 vs 16; p < 0.01). When comparing HAL (n = 109) to TLR (n = 243), despite increased prior abdominal operations (60 vs 43%; p = 0.008), HAL had shorter operative time (167 vs 191 min; p < 0.01), similar length-of-stay (LOS; 5.4 vs 5.1 days; p = 0.27), and readmission rate (15 vs 13%; p = 0.47). When comparing HAL to open, the advantages of TLR approach persisted including lower EBL (171 vs 342 mL; p < 0.01), and shorter LOS (5.4 vs 7.2 days; p < 0.01). Although HAL had smaller tumors, it had a similar LN yield (16 vs 16; p = 0.80), and higher R0-rate (97 vs 83%; p < 0.01).
conclusionHand-assist laparoscopy is safe and feasible for distal pancreatectomy as operative time, complication profile, lymph node yield, and R0-rates are similar to open procedures, while maintaining the associated the advantages of a total laparoscopic/robotic approach with reduced blood loss and shorter length-of-stay.
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.