Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35523857›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Radiofrequency-assisted transection of the pancreas vs stapler in distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score matched cohort analysis.

E Pueyo-Périz, C Téllez-Marquès, A Radosevic, O Morató, L Visa, L Ilzarbe, E Berjano, E de Vicente, I Poves, B Ielpo and 3 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07687901 (Safety and Feasibility of Radiofrequency-Assisted Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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.

NCT07687901 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Safety and Feasibility of Radiofrequency-Assisted Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy (Attachable Coolingbis®)

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorHospital del MarRan2026 to 2027Enrolled20ConditionsPancreatectomyArmsInternally-cooled bipolar radiofrequency device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

E Pueyo-Périz *Division of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital del Mar-IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Passeig Maritim 25-29, Barcelona, Spain. epueyoperiz@gmail.com.
C Téllez-Marquès *Division of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital del Mar-IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Passeig Maritim 25-29, Barcelona, Spain.
A RadosevicDepartment of Radiology, Hospital del Mar, Passeig Maritim 25-29, Barcelona, Spain.
O MoratóDivision of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital del Mar-IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Passeig Maritim 25-29, Barcelona, Spain.
L VisaDepartment of Oncology, Hospital del Mar-IMIM-CIBERONC, Passeig Maritim 25-29, Barcelona, Spain.
L IlzarbeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital del Mar, Passeig Maritim 25-29, Barcelona, Spain.
E BerjanoBioMIT, Department of Electronic Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain.
E de VicenteDepartment of Surgery, Hospital Sanchinarro, Madrid, Spain.
I PovesDivision of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital del Mar-IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Passeig Maritim 25-29, Barcelona, Spain.
B IelpoDivision of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital del Mar-IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Passeig Maritim 25-29, Barcelona, Spain.
L GrandeDivision of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital del Mar-IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Passeig Maritim 25-29, Barcelona, Spain.
F BurdíoDivision of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital del Mar-IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Passeig Maritim 25-29, Barcelona, Spain.
P Sánchez-VelázquezDivision of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital del Mar-IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Passeig Maritim 25-29, Barcelona, Spain. Psanchezvelazquez@psmar.cat.
Hospital Del Mar · ESHospital del Mar Research Institute · ESHospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro · ESMunicipal Institute for Medical Research · ESUniversitat Politècnica de València · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To demonstrate the efficacy of radiofrequency for pancreatic stump closure in reducing the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) in distal pancreatectomy (DP) compared with mechanical transection methods. Despite all the different techniques of pancreatic stump closure proposed for DP, best practice for avoiding POPF remains an unresolved issue, with an incidence of up to 30% regardless of center volume or surgical expertise. DP was performed in a cohort of patients by applying radiofrequency to stump closure (RF Group) and compared with mechanical closure (Control Group). A propensity score (PS) matched cohort study was carried out to minimize bias from nonrandomized treatment assignment. Cohorts were matched by PS accounting for factors significantly associated with either undergoing RF transection or mechanical closure through logistic regression analysis. The primary end-point was the incidence of clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF). Of 89 patients included in the whole cohort, 13 case patients from the RF-Group were 1:1 matched to 13 control patients. In both the first independent analysis of unmatched data and subsequent adjustment to the overall propensity score-matched cohort, a higher rate of CR-POPF in the Control Group compared with the RF-Group was detected (25.4% vs 5.3%, p = 0.049 and 53.8% vs 0%; p = 0.016 respectively). The RF Group showed better outcomes in terms of readmission rate (46.2% vs 0%, p = 0.031). No significant differences were observed in terms of mortality, major complications (30.8% vs 0%, p = 0.063) or length of hospital stay (5.7 vs 5.2 days, p = 0.89). Findings suggest that the RF-assisted technique is more efficacious in reducing CR-POPF than mechanical pancreatic stump closure.

Indexed as

PancreatectomyPancreatic FistulaCohort StudiesHumansPancreasPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID35523857
PMCPMC9076639
OpenAlexW4229045632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.