Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34417366›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgery2023

Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Low-Risk Surgical Candidates: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study.

Qu Liu, Zhiming Zhao, Xiuping Zhang, Wei Wang, Bing Han, Xiong Chen, Xiaodong Tan, Shuai Xu, Guodong Zhao, Yuanxing Gao and 10 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

Qu LiuFaculty of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, the First Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zhiming ZhaoFaculty of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, the First Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiuping ZhangFaculty of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, the First Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Wei WangDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou, Liaoning, China.
Bing HanDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China.
Xiong ChenDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China.
Xiaodong Tan1st Department of General Surgery, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
Shuai XuFaculty of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, the First Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Guodong ZhaoFaculty of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, the First Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yuanxing GaoFaculty of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, the First Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Qin GanFaculty of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, the First Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jianlei YuanDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, People Hospital of Cangzhou city, Cangzhou, Hebei, China.
Yuntao MaDepartment of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Ye DongDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China.
Zhonghua LiuDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Chifeng Hospital, Chifeng, Inner Mongolia, China.
Hailong WangDepartment of Digestive Minimally Invasive Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Baotou Medical College, Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China.
Fangyong FanDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, People Hospital of Huanghua city, Cangzhou, Hebei, China.
Jianing LiuDepartment of Thyroid and Pancreatic Surgery, The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Wan Yee LauFaculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Rong LiuFaculty of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, the First Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Chinese People's Liberation Army · CNChinese PLA General Hospital · CNPeople's Hospital of Cangzhou · CNBaotou Medical College · CNChifeng Municipal Hospital · CNChina Medical University · CNChinese University of Hong Kong · CNFirst Hospital of Shanxi Medical University · CNGansu Provincial Hospital · CNJinzhou Medical University · CNPeople's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region · CNQingdao University · CNSecond Hospital of Shandong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to perform a multicenter comparison between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

backgroundPrevious comparisons of RPD versus OPD have only been carried out in small, single-center studies of variable quality.

methodsConsecutive patients who underwent RPD (n = 1032) or OPD (n = 1154) at 7 centers in China between July 2012 and July 2020 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed.

resultsAfter PSM, 982 patients in each group were enrolled. The RPD group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (190.0 vs 260.0 mL; P < 0.001), and a shorter postoperative 1length of hospital stay (LOS) (12.0 (9.0-16.0) days vs 14.5 (11.0-19.0) days; P < 0.001) than the OPD group. There were no significant differences in operative time, major morbidity including clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), reoperation, readmission or 90-day mortality rates. Multivariable analysis showed R0 resection, CR-POPF, PPH and reoperation to be independent risk factors for 90-day mortality. Subgroup analysis on patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (n = 326 in each subgroup) showed RPD had advantages over OPD in EBL and postoperative LOS. There were no significant differences in median disease-free survival (15.2 vs 14.3 months, P = 0.94) or median overall survival (24.2 vs 24.1 months, P = 0.88) between the 2 subgroups.

conclusionsRPD was comparable to OPD in feasibility and safety. For patients with PDAC, RPD resulted in similar oncologic and survival outcomes as OPD.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalLaparoscopyPancreatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansPancreatectomyPancreatic FistulaPancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative HemorrhagePropensity ScoreRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID34417366
OpenAlexW3195944094

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.