Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35290288›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Surgeons2022

Survival and Robotic Approach for Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Propensity Score-Match Study.

Alexander S Rosemurgy, Sharona B Ross, Abigail Espeut, Danielle Nguyen, Kaitlyn Crespo, Cameron Syblis, Padma Vasanthakumar, Iswanto Sucandy

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06562179 (A Prospective, Single-Center Investigation of the da Vinci SP® Surgical System in Hepatopancreaticobiliary and Foregut Operations for Benign and Malignant Disease.), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-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.

NCT06562179 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

A Prospective, Single-Center Investigation of the da Vinci SP® Surgical System in Hepatopancreaticobiliary and Foregut Operations for Benign and Malignant Disease.

TypeinterventionalSponsorAdventHealthRan2024 to 2030Enrolled35ConditionsHepatopancreaticobiliary and Foregut OperationsArmsda Vinci SP® Single-Port Robotic Surgical System
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Alexander S RosemurgyFrom the Digestive Health Institute, Tampa, FL.
Sharona B Ross
Abigail Espeut
Danielle Nguyen
Kaitlyn Crespo
Cameron Syblis
Padma Vasanthakumar
Iswanto Sucandy

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic surgery is a burgeoning minimally invasive approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study was undertaken to compare survival after robotic vs "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma using propensity score-matched patients. STUDY

designWith institutional review board approval, we prospectively followed 521 patients who underwent robotic (n = 311) or open (n = 210) pancreaticoduodenectomy. Patients who underwent robotic (n = 75) or open (n = 75) pancreaticoduodenectomy were propensity score-matched by age, sex, and American Joint Committee on Cancer stage. Neoadjuvant therapy was rarely administered, and adjuvant therapy was stressed (FOLFIRINOX for patients <70 years of age and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel for patients >70 years of age). Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

resultsOperative duration was longer and estimated blood loss and length of stay were less with robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (421 [409 ± 94.0] vs 267 [254 ± 81.2] minutes; 307 [(150 ± 605.3] vs 444 [255 ± 353.1] mL; 7 [5 ± 5.1] vs 11 [8 ± 9.5] days; p < 0.00001 for all). There were no differences in complications (Clavien-Dindo class ≥III, p = 0.30), in-hospital mortality (p = 0.61), or 30-day readmission rates (p = 0.19). Median survival after robotic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy was 37 vs 24 months (p = 0.08). For propensity score-matched patients, operative duration for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was longer (442 [438 ± 117.7] vs 261 [249 ± 67.1] minutes) and estimated blood loss was less (269 [200 ± 296.1] vs 468 [300 ± 394.9] mL), as was length of stay (7 [5 ± 5.1] vs 10 [7 ± 8.6] days; p < 0.00001 for all). There were no differences in complication rates (Clavien-Dindo class ≥ III, p = 0.31) or in-hospital mortality (p = 0.40); 30-day readmissions were fewer after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (7% vs 20%, p = 0.03). Median survival for the robotic vs the open approach was 41 vs 17 months (p = 0.02).

conclusionPatients that underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy had longer operations, less estimated blood loss, shorter length of stay, and fewer 30-day readmissions; they lived much longer than patients who underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy. We believe that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy provides salutary and survival benefits for reasons yet unknown.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPancreatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsHumansLength of StayPancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35290288
OpenAlexW4220866194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.