ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021
Registrar performance in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and effects on postoperative outcomes.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is nowadays an established standard procedure for non-locally advanced pancreatic lesions without celio-mesenteric vascular invasion. However, little is known about how the involvement of junior surgeons in MIDP affects postoperative outcomes. We performed a retrospective case series study in order to determine whether registrar involvement in MIDP is associated with adverse outcomes.
methodsData were analyzed from a prospectively created database of consecutive patients undergoing MIDP. Only data from 91 patients who underwent MIDP for non-PDAC lesions were included. Patients were divided in 3 groups: Consultant P1 (first 20 MIDP, n=20), Consultant P2 (after 20 MIDP, n=44), and Registrar group (n=27). Conversion rates and 90-day postoperative outcomes were compared.
resultsConversion rates were 5%, 0%, and 14% in Consultant P1 and P2 and Registrar groups, respectively (P1 vs. P2, p = 0.312 and P1 vs. Registrar, p=0.376). Only Comprehensive Complication Index was higher in Registrar group compared to Consultant P1 group (13 vs. 3.7; p = 0.041). Comparison between Consultant P2 and Registrar groups resulted in a significant higher conversion rate (0 vs. 14%, p = 0.029), increased blood loss (77 vs. 263 ml, p = 0.018), and longer surgery duration (156 vs. 212 min, p=0.001) for registrars MIDP. However, no differences were found in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) (16 vs. 7.5%, p=0.282), Clavien-Dindo severe complication ≥3 score (11 vs. 4%, p=0.396), or length of hospital stay (9 vs. 9 days; p=0.614) between the consultant and registrar cohorts.
conclusionsWith all the limitations of a retrospective study with a small sample size, junior surgeons' involvement in MIDP for non-PDAC lesions resulted in higher conversion rate, blood loss and duration of surgery without statistically significant difference on clinical outcomes compared to a consultant.
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.