Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34182462›Full record

ReviewIn vivo (Athens, Greece)

Robotic Total Pancreatectomy: A Narrative Review.

Kosei Takagi, Bas Groot Koerkamp

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

2 authors.

Kosei TakagiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan; kotakagi15@gmail.com.
Bas Groot KoerkampDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimStudies on robotic total pancreatectomy (RTP) have been limited regardless of the increasing evidence on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The aim of this study was to review the current status of RTP in terms of surgical techniques and outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methodsA literature search using PubMed was conducted to investigate surgical techniques and outcomes of RTP.

resultsA total of eight case series with 56 patients were included. The indications for RTP consisted of benign or pre-malignant tumors in 43 patients and malignant tumors in 13 patients. Surgical techniques included the "dividing technique" and "en-bloc technique". Regarding surgical outcomes, the rate of conversion to open total pancreatectomy was 3.6% and the incidence of major complications was 10.7%.

conclusionAlthough evidence for RTP is still lacking, RTP is feasible for selected patients when performed in specialized centers. Further studies are essential to investigate the effectiveness of RTP compared to open total pancreatectomy.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPancreatic NeoplasmsRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansPancreatectomyPancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative ComplicationsreviewrobotTotal pancreatectomy

Identifiers

PMID34182462
PMCPMC8286535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.