ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2022
Clinical impact of the new "twin U-stitch method" of pancreaticogastrostomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2022. 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, 2 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
purposeThe optimal pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) method for reducing pancreatic fistula (PF) incidence remains unclear. This retrospective review aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of the "twin U-stitch method" and compared it with the conventional invagination method.
methodsData of 183 consecutive patients who underwent PG after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) between January 2015 and November 2020 were evaluated. PF incidence was compared between patients who experienced twin U-stitch PG (twin U-stitch group) and those who experienced conventional invagination PG (conventional PG group).
resultsThe twin U-stitch and conventional PG methods were performed in 97 and 86 patients, respectively. The time required for twin U-stitch PG was shorter than conventional PG (9.3 min vs 20.0 min, P < 0.001). The twin U-stitch group showed a lower incidence of PF than the conventional PG group (8% vs. 19%, P = 0.038). Multivariate analysis confirmed that twin U-stitch PG was significantly correlated with a decreased risk of PF (odds ratio, 0.23; P = 0.006), independent of the texture of the pancreas. Subgroup analysis of patients with soft-textured pancreas showed that the median drain amylase levels in the twin U-stitch group on postoperative days (POD) 1 and 3 were significantly lower than those in the conventional PG group (POD 1: 1,335 vs. 5,991 U/L, P < 0.001; POD 3: 212 vs. 518, P = 0.001).
conclusionThe twin U-stitch method was simple and preferable to the conventional method for preventing PF in patients with PD.
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.