Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33836678›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2021

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma: separate propensity score matching analyses of distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Ke Chen, Yu Pan, Chao-Jie Huang, Qi-Long Chen, Ren-Chao Zhang, Miao-Zun Zhang, Guan-Yu Wang, Xian-Fa Wang, Yi-Ping Mou, Jia-Fei Yan

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Laparoscopic PancreaticoduodenectomyFrontiers in oncology · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ke Chen *Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, Zhejiang Province, China.
Yu Pan *Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, Zhejiang Province, China.
Chao-Jie HuangDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, Zhejiang Province, China.
Qi-Long ChenDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, Zhejiang Province, China.
Ren-Chao ZhangDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, 158 Shangtang Road, Hangzhou, 310014, Zhejiang Province, China.
Miao-Zun ZhangDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Ningbo Medical Center, Lihuili Hospital, Ningbo, 315100, Zhejiang Province, China.
Guan-Yu WangDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, Zhejiang Province, China.
Xian-Fa WangDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, Zhejiang Province, China.
Yi-Ping MouDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, 158 Shangtang Road, Hangzhou, 310014, Zhejiang Province, China.
Jia-Fei YanDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, Zhejiang Province, China. 3407161@zju.edu.cn.
Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital · CNZhejiang University · CNZhejiang Provincial People's Hospital · CNNingbo Medical Center Lihuili Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Currently, laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is extensively applied to treat benign and low-grade diseases related to the pancreas. The viability and safety of LPR for PDAC needs to be understood better. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are the two main surgical approaches for PDAC. We performed separate propensity score matching (PSM) analyses to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LPR for PDAC by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) as well as LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

methodsWe assessed the data of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC between January 2004 and February 2020 at our hospital. A one-to-one PSM was applied to prevent selection bias by accounting for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and tumour size. The DP group included 86 LDP patients and 86 ODP patients, whereas the PD group included 101 LPD patients and 101 OPD patients. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effects, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared.

resultsCompared to ODP, LDP was associated with shorter operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. Of the 101 patients who underwent LPD, 10 patients (9.9%) required conversion to laparotomy. The short-term surgical advantage of LPD is not as apparent as that of LDP due to conversions. Compared with OPD, LPD was associated with longer operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. For oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumour size, R0 resection rate, and tumour stage in both the DP and PD subgroups. However, laparoscopic procedures appear to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (DP subgroup: 14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 11.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.03; PD subgroup 21.9 ± 6.6 vs. 18.9 ± 5.4, p = 0.07). These two groups did not show a significant difference in the pattern of recurrence and overall survival rate.

conclusionsLaparoscopic DP and PD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC, with similar postoperative outcomes and long-term survival among patients who underwent open surgery.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPancreatectomyPancreaticoduodenectomyAgedCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalComorbidityFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingPancreatic NeoplasmsPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreAdenocarcinomaLaparoscopyMorbidityPancreatectomySurvival

Identifiers

PMID33836678
PMCPMC8034161
OpenAlexW3141862579

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.