Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34608941›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2021

Completion pancreatectomy or a pancreas-preserving procedure during relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicentre cohort study and meta-analysis.

J V Groen, F J Smits, D Koole, M G Besselink, O R Busch, M den Dulk, C H J van Eijck, B Groot Koerkamp, E van der Harst, I H de Hingh and 8 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Comment on: "Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

J V GroenDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2438-4665
F J SmitsDepartment of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Centre Utrecht, University Medical Centre Utrecht, and St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1347-0218
D KooleDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
M G BesselinkDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2650-9350
O R BuschDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
M den DulkDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
C H J van EijckDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
B Groot KoerkampDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
E van der HarstDepartment of Surgery, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
I H de HinghDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
T M KarstenDepartment of Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis (loc. Oost), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
V E de MeijerDepartment of Surgery, University of Groningen and University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
B K PrangerDepartment of Surgery, University of Groningen and University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6304-7987
I Q MolenaarDepartment of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Centre Utrecht, University Medical Centre Utrecht, and St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
B A BonsingDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
H C van SantvoortDepartment of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Centre Utrecht, University Medical Centre Utrecht, and St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
J S D MieogDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group
Leiden University · NLUtrecht University · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLMaasstad Ziekenhuis · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLOLVG · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the fact that primary percutaneous catheter drainage has become standard practice, some patients with pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy ultimately undergo a relaparotomy. The aim of this study was to compare completion pancreatectomy with a pancreas-preserving procedure in patients undergoing relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.

methodsThis retrospective cohort study of nine institutions included patients who underwent relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy from 2005-2018. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines.

resultsFrom 4877 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, 786 (16 per cent) developed a pancreatic fistula grade B/C and 162 (3 per cent) underwent a relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula. Of these patients, 36 (22 per cent) underwent a completion pancreatectomy and 126 (78 per cent) a pancreas-preserving procedure. Mortality was higher after completion pancreatectomy (20 (56 per cent) versus 40 patients (32 per cent); P = 0.009), which remained after adjusting for sex, age, BMI, ASA score, previous reintervention, and organ failure in the 24 h before relaparotomy (adjusted odds ratio 2.55, 95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 6.08). The proportion of additional reinterventions was not different between groups (23 (64 per cent) versus 84 patients (67 per cent); P = 0.756). The meta-analysis including 33 studies evaluating 745 patients, confirmed the association between completion pancreatectomy and mortality (Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model: odds ratio 1.99, 95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 3.84).

conclusionBased on the current data, a pancreas-preserving procedure seems preferable to completion pancreatectomy in patients in whom a relaparotomy is deemed necessary for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesDrainageGlobal HealthHumansIncidenceIntraoperative PeriodLaparotomyMulticenter Studies as TopicPancreatectomyPancreatic FistulaPancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationSurvival Rate

Identifiers

PMID34608941
PMCPMC10364904
OpenAlexW3204757824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.