Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33201457›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2021

Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a Propensity-Matched Analysis to Open and Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy.

A Floortje van Oosten, Ding Ding, Joseph R Habib, Ahmer Irfan, Ryan K Schmocker, Elisabetta Sereni, Benedict Kinny-Köster, Michael Wright, Vincent P Groot, I Quintus Molenaar and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

16 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

A Floortje van Oosten *Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Ding Ding *Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Joseph R HabibDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Ahmer IrfanDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Ryan K SchmockerDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Elisabetta SereniDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Benedict Kinny-KösterDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Michael WrightDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Vincent P GrootDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
I Quintus MolenaarDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
John L CameronDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Martin MakaryDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Richard A BurkhartDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
William R BurnsDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Christopher L WolfgangDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Jin HeDepartment of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. jhe11@jhmi.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9149-2247
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRobotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is slowly gaining acceptance within pancreatic surgery. Advantages have been demonstrated for robotic surgery in other fields, but robust data for pancreaticoduodenectomy is limited. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD).

methodsPatients who underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy between January 2011 and July 2019 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital were included in this retrospective propensity-matched analysis. The RPD cohort was matched to patients who underwent OPD in a 1:2 fashion and LPD in a 1:1 fashion. Short-term outcomes were analyzed for all three cohorts.

resultsIn total, 1644 patients were included, of which 96 (5.8%) underwent RPD, 131 (8.0%) LPD, and 1417 (86.2%) OPD. RPD was associated with a decreased incidence of delayed gastric emptying (9.4%) compared to OPD (23.5%; P = 0.006). The median estimated blood loss was significantly less in the RPD cohort (RPD vs OPD, 150 vs 487 mL; P < 0.001, RPD vs LPD, 125 vs 300 mL; P < 0.001). Compared to OPD, the robotic approach was associated with a shorter median length of stay (median 8 vs 9 days; P = 0.014) and a decrease in wound complications (4.2% vs 16.7%; P = 0.002). The incidence of other postoperative complications was comparable between RPD and OPD, and RPD and LPD.

conclusionIn the hands of experienced surgeons, RPD may have a modest yet statistically significant reduction in estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, wound complications, and delayed gastric emptying comparing to OPD in similar patients.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPancreatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansLength of StayPancreatectomyPancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesComplicationsLaparoscopicMinimally invasiveRobotic pancreaticoduodenectomyShort-term outcomes

Identifiers

PMID33201457
OpenAlexW3101425709

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.