ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Minimally invasive versus open duodenal switch: a nationwide retrospective analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhanced long-term outcomes with laparoscopic bariatric surgery in patients with severe obesity and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a retrospective cohort study.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
- Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: The Contraindications of the Past are the Indications of the Future.Current obesity reports · 2026Review
- Impact of Increasing Robotic Bariatric Utilization on Duodenal Switch Procedure Outcomes.Obesity surgery · 2025Article
- Outcomes of SADI and OAGB Compared to RYGB from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Quality Improvement Program: The North American Experience.Obesity surgery · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aims to characterize the variability in clinical outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic Duodenal Switch (DS).
methodsFrom the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery and Accreditation Quality Improvement Program, patients who underwent DS (2015-2018) were identified. Open DS was compared to laparoscopic and robotic approaches with for patients factors, perioperative characteristics, and 30-day postoperative outcomes. Logistic regression estimates were used to characterize variables associated with surgical site infections, bleeding, reoperation, readmission, and early discharge (hospital stay of ≤ one day).
resultsOf 7649 cases, 411 (5.4%) were open, 5722 (74.8%) were laparoscopic, and 1515 (19.8%) were robotic DS. Open DS patients were more often older (≥ 65 years:4.7% vs. 4.3% vs. 2.1%, p < 0.01) and had lower body mass index (< 40 kg/m
conclusionOpen DS is associated with greater risk for complications and excessive resource utilization when compared to minimally invasive approaches. Laparoscopic and robotic techniques should be prioritized in performing DS, despite the complexity of the procedure.
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.