ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021
A drainage strategy for postoperative pancreatic fistula after left-sided pancreatectomy based on the wall status of collected fluid.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of endoscopic drainage versus percutaneous drainage for pancreatic fluid collection; a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2023Pooled it
- [Endoscopic management of complications in the hepatobiliary and pancreatic system and the tracheobronchial tree].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePostoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatectomy is one of the severe postoperative adverse events. We aimed to clarify the outcomes of a strategy for POPF after left-sided pancreatectomy with one-step endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) and percutaneous drainage (PCD) based on the wall status of collected fluid.
methodsFrom January 2012 to September 2017, 90 of 336 patients developed grade B/C POPF and were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome measures were the technical and clinical success and resolution rates. Secondary outcome measures were time from surgery to intervention, and time from intervention to discharge/resolution or stent/tube removal and adverse events.
resultsSeventeen patients underwent EUSD and 73 patients underwent PCD for POPF. The technical success rates were 100% in both the EUSD and PCD groups. The clinical success and resolution rates in the EUSD group were 100%, while those in the PCD group were 98.6%. The time from surgery to intervention was significantly longer in the EUSD group than in the PCD group (20 vs. 11 days, p < 0.001). The time from intervention to discharge/resolution was significantly shorter in the EUSD group than in the PCD group (11 vs. 22 days, p < 0.001/10 vs. 20 days, p < 0.001). The time from intervention to stent/tube removal was significantly shorter in the PCD group than in the EUSD group (20.5 vs. 873 days, p < 0.001). Adverse event rates were similar in the two groups (11.8% vs. 5.5%).
conclusionA drainage strategy for POPF based on the wall status of collected fluid is appropriate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33392815What 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.