ArticleUpdates in surgery2022
Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic approach of Bai-Jiang-style vagus nerve-preserving splenectomy and azygoportal disconnection.
Article in Updates in 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Robotic surgery has been widely accepted in many kinds of surgical procedures. Little is known about clinical effects of robotic-assisted splenectomy and azygoportal disconnection (RSD) for gastroesophageal variceal bleeding and secondary hypersplenism owing to cirrhotic portal hypertension. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether RSD is feasible and safe for patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension and whether RSD is superior to laparoscopic splenectomy and azygoportal disconnection (LSD). We retrospectively investigated the clinical effects of 50 patients with cirrhosis who underwent vagus nerve-preserving RSD (n = 20) and LSD (n = 30) between September 2020 and October 2021. We compared patients' demographic, intraoperative, and perioperative variables. RSD and LSD were successful in all patients. Operative time did not differ significantly between the RSD group and LSD group (151.15 ± 21.78 min vs. 144.50 ± 24.30 min, P > 0.05), but intraoperative blood loss were significantly reduced in the RSD group (61.00 ± 34.93 mL vs. 105.00 ± 68.77 mL, P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found regarding intraoperative allogeneic transfusion rate, visual analog scale pain score on the postoperative first day, time to first oral intake, initial passage of flatus, initial off-bed activity, postoperative hospital stay, and overall perioperative complication rate (all P > 0.05). In conclusion, RSD is not only a technically feasible and safe procedure but it was associated with less blood loss than LSD for cirrhotic portal hypertension with gastroesophageal variceal bleeding and secondary hypersplenism. Registered at researchregistery.com: trial registration number is researchregistry7244, date of registration October 10, 2021, registered retrospectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34994944What 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.