Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32016613›Full record

ArticleSurgery today2020

A retrospective comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms.

Nawid Najafi, I Mintziras, D Wiese, M B Albers, E Maurer, D K Bartsch

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgery today, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. RoboticFrontiers in oncology · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nawid NajafiDepartment of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany. nawid.najafi@uk-gm.de.
I MintzirasDepartment of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany.
D WieseDepartment of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany.
M B AlbersDepartment of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany.
E MaurerDepartment of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany.
D K BartschDepartment of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany.
Philipps University of Marburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms.

methodsPatients were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Demographic data, tumor types, and the perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

resultsIn a 10-year period, 75 patients (female, n = 44; male, n = 31; median age, 53 years [range, 9-84 years]) were identified. The majority of patients had pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (n = 39, 52%) and cystic neoplasms (n = 23, 31%) with a median tumor size of 17 (3-60) mm. Nineteen (25.3%) patients underwent enucleation (robotic, n = 11; laparoscopic, n = 8) and 56 (74.7%) patients underwent distal pancreatic resection (robotic, n = 24; laparoscopic, n = 32), of those 48 (85%) underwent spleen-preserving procedures. Eight (10.7%) procedures had to be converted to open surgery. The rate of vessel preservation in distal pancreatectomy was significantly higher in robotic-assisted procedures (62.5% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.01). Twenty-six (34.6%) patients experienced postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade > 3). Twenty (26.7%) patients developed a pancreatic fistula type B. There was no mortality. After a median follow-up period of 58 months (range 2-120 months), one patient (1.3%) developed local recurrence (glucagonoma) after enucleation, which was treated with a Whipple procedure.

conclusionThe robotic approach is comparably safe, but increases the rate of splenic vessel preservation and reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, NeuroendocrineFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedOrgan Sparing TreatmentsPancreatectomyPancreatic FistulaPancreatic NeoplasmsPostoperative ComplicationsPrognosisLaparoscopic pancreatectomyLaparoscopic pancreatic enucleationMinimally invasive surgeryRobotic-assisted pancreatectomyRobotic pancreatic enucleation

Identifiers

PMID32016613
OpenAlexW3004563321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.