Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33315230›Full record

SynthesisUpdates in surgery2021

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Alberto Aiolfi, Francesca Lombardo, Gianluca Bonitta, Piergiorgio Danelli, Davide Bona

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 8 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.

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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Review of Contemporary Evidence on Surgical Outcomes and Learning Curve.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

5 authors.

Alberto AiolfiDepartment of Biomedical Science for Health, Division of General Surgery, Istituto Clinico Sant'Ambrogio, University of Milan, Via Luigi Giuseppe Faravelli, 16, 20149, Milan, Italy. alberto.aiolfi86@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7764-6075
Francesca LombardoDepartment of Biomedical Science for Health, Division of General Surgery, Istituto Clinico Sant'Ambrogio, University of Milan, Via Luigi Giuseppe Faravelli, 16, 20149, Milan, Italy.
Gianluca BonittaDepartment of Biomedical Science for Health, Division of General Surgery, Istituto Clinico Sant'Ambrogio, University of Milan, Via Luigi Giuseppe Faravelli, 16, 20149, Milan, Italy.
Piergiorgio DanelliDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, "Luigi Sacco" Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Davide BonaDepartment of Biomedical Science for Health, Division of General Surgery, Istituto Clinico Sant'Ambrogio, University of Milan, Via Luigi Giuseppe Faravelli, 16, 20149, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has been a debate on its related outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated evidence comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes within Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy (OpenPD), Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LapPD), and Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RobPD). MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were referred for systematic search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was executed. Forty-one articles (56,440 patients) were included; 48,382 (85.7%) underwent OpenPD, 5570 (9.8%) LapPD, and 2488 (4.5%) RobPD. Compared to OpenPD, LapPD and RobPD had similar postoperative mortality [Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.26; 95%CrI 0.91-1.61 and RR = 0.78; 95%CrI 0.54-1.12)], clinically relevant (grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 1.12; 95%CrI 0.82-1.43 and RR = 0.87; 95%CrI 0.64-1.14, respectively), and severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) postoperative complications (RR = 1.03; 95%CrI 0.80-1.46 and RR = 0.93; 95%CrI 0.65-1.14, respectively). Compared to OpenPD, both LapPD and RobPD had significantly reduced hospital length-of-stay, estimated blood loss, infectious, pulmonary, overall complications, postoperative bleeding, and hospital readmission. No differences were found in the number of retrieved lymph nodes and R0. OpenPD, LapPD, and RobPD seem to be comparable across clinically relevant POPF, severe complications, postoperative mortality, retrieved lymphnodes, and R0. LapPD and RobPD appears to be safer in terms of infectious, pulmonary, and overall complications with reduced hospital readmission We advocate surgeons to choose their preferred surgical approach according to their expertise, however, the adoption of minimally invasive techniques may possibly improve patients' outcomes.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPancreatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresBayes TheoremHumansPancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative ComplicationsLaparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomyNetwork meta-analysisOpen pancreaticoduodenectomyPancreaticoduodenectomyRobotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Identifiers

PMID33315230
PMCPMC8184540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.