SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2021
Extended lymph node resection versus standard resection for pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinoma.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Mizoribine in the Treatment of Lupus Nephritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Rheumatology and therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Outcomes of extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Is it worth to explore the contralateral side in unilateral childhood inguinal hernia?: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Prognostic outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy with lymph node dissection in pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinoma; a retrospective cohort study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Non-invasive multi-phase CT artificial intelligence for predicting pre-treatment enlarged lymph node status in colorectal cancer: a prospective validation study.European radiology · 2025Article
- Recent advances in operative techniques for pancreatic surgery.Innovative surgical sciences · 2025Review
- Reassessing the role of lymph node dissection in pancreatic cancer surgery: Balancing oncologic control and immune function preservation.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Review
- Conventional partial pancreatoduodenectomy versus an uncinate first, extended partial pancreatoduodenectomy approach for the resection of pancreatic head cancer: the randomized, controlled PancER trial.Innovative surgical sciences · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting postoperative intraluminal hemorrhage in patients undergoing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Effects of nutritional status on short-term prognosis after minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectom.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- TRIANGLE operation, combined with adequate adjuvant chemotherapy, can improve the prognosis of pancreatic head cancer: A retrospective study.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Preoperative prediction of disease-free survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients after R0 resection using contrast-enhanced CT and CA19-9.European radiology · 2024Article
- Histopathological evaluation after pancreatic surgery: Comparison of the results of HPB-specific pathologists and non-specific pathologists.Turkish journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Surgical management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a narrative review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023Review
- Anatomy of the neural fibers at the superior mesenteric artery-a cadaver study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Article
- The prognostic relevance of examined lymph nodes for accurate staging of resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinomas account for some of the most aggressive malignancies, and the leading causes of cancer-related mortalities. Partial pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with negative resection margins is the only potentially curative therapy. The high prevalence of lymph node metastases has led to the hypothesis that wider excision with the removal of more lymphatic tissue could result in an improvement of survival, and higher rates of negative resection margins.
objectivesTo compare overall survival following standard (SLA) versus extended lymph lymphadenectomy (ELA) for pancreatic head and periampullary adenocarcinoma. We also compared secondary outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, and tumour involvement of the resection margins between the two procedures. SEARCH
methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase from 1973 to September 2020; we applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing PD with SLA versus PD with ELA, including participants with pancreatic head and periampullary adenocarcinoma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened references and extracted data from study reports. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for most binary outcomes except for postoperative mortality, for which we estimated a Peto odds ratio (Peto OR), and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. We used a fixed-effect model in the absence of substantial heterogeneity (I² < 25%), and a random-effects model in cases of substantial heterogeneity (I² > 25%). Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias, and we used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for important outcomes. MAIN
resultsWe included seven studies with 843 participants (421 ELA and 422 SLA). All seven studies included Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival. There was little or no difference in survival between groups (log hazard ratio (log HR) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.06 to 3.31; P = 0.94; seven studies, 843 participants; very low-quality evidence). There was little or no difference in postoperative mortality between the groups (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.20, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.80; seven studies, 843 participants; low-quality evidence). Operating time was probably longer for ELA (mean difference (MD) 50.13 minutes, 95% CI 19.19 to 81.06 minutes; five studies, 670 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was substantial heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 88%; P < 0.00001). There may have been more blood loss during ELA (MD 137.43 mL, 95% CI 11.55 to 263.30 mL; two studies, 463 participants; very low-quality evidence). There was substantial heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 81%, P = 0.02). There may have been more lymph nodes retrieved during ELA (MD 11.09 nodes, 95% CI 7.16 to 15.02; five studies, 670 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was substantial heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 81%, P < 0.00001). There was little or no difference in the incidence of positive resection margins between groups (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.13; six studies, 783 participants; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is no evidence of an impact on survival with extended versus standard lymph node resection. However, the operating time may have been longer and blood loss greater in the extended resection group. In conclusion, current evidence neither supports nor refutes the effect of extended lymph lymphadenectomy in people with adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas.
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.