Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2020
Dissection with LigaSure Impact™ versus conventional resection in pylorus-preserving partial pancreatoduodenectomy (DISSECT): a single-institution randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reporting Standards and Quality Assurance Methods for Pancreatoduodenectomy in Randomised Controlled Trials: A Structured Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn partial pancreatoduodenectomy, appropriate effective hemostasis during dissection is of major importance for procedural flow, operation time, and postoperative outcome. As ligation, clipping, or suturing of blood vessels is time-consuming and numerous instrument changes are required, the primary aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess whether LigaSure Impact™ exhibits benefits over named conventional dissection techniques in patients undergoing pylorus-preserving partial pancreatoduodenectomy.
methodsThis single-institution, randomized, superiority trial was performed between September 27, 2009, and February 24, 2012. Patients undergoing pylorus-preserving partial pancreatoduodenectomy were allocated to the study arms in a 1:1 ratio based on an unstratified block randomization with random block sizes to receive either dissection with LigaSure Impact™ or conventional dissection. The primary endpoint was operation time. Secondary endpoints included peri- and postoperative morbidity and mortality, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay. To observe a time reduction of 40 min, 51 patients per arm were required. The primary analysis was the intention to treat.
resultsThe mean operation time did not differ between the Ligasure Impact™ (308 min; SD: 56 min; range: 155-455 min) and the conventional dissection (318 min; SD: 90 min, range: 175-550 min) (p = 0.531). Moreover, LigaSure Impact™ dissection did not show significant advantages over conventional dissection in terms of peri- and postoperative morbidity and mortality, intraoperative blood loss, or length of hospital stay.
conclusionsThe application of LigaSure Impact™ dissection in pylorus-preserving partial pancreatoduodenectomy does not increase effectiveness and safety of dissection.
trial registrationDRKS00000166.
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.