ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for distal bile duct cancer: an inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis of outcomes.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing the operative, oncological, post-operative outcomes and complications of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of pancreatic and periampullary cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis with subgroup analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy provides better short-term outcomes as compared to its laparoscopic counterpart: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumors: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been extended to periampullary cancers, but the oncologic outcome of MIPD for distal bile duct cancer (DBDC) has not been confirmed yet.
methodsPatients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for DBDC of stage I-IIb from 2015 to 2019 at a tertiary referral center were identified and divided into open PD (OPD) and MIPD groups, the latter including laparoscopic and robotic procedures. Survival was compared between the two groups after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using predetermined factors, and exploratory mediation analysis was performed using surgery-derived outcomes.
resultsMIPD (n = 81) group had more female patients (46.9% vs 31.6%, p = 0.011) and longer operation time (366.2 min vs. 279.1 min, p < 0.001) than the OPD (n = 288) group before IPTW. Otherwise, intraoperative and immediate postoperative outcomes were comparable between the two groups. In oncologic outcomes, MIPD group showed comparable 3-year overall survival (78.2% vs 75.0%, p = 0.062) and recurrence-free survival (51.2% vs 53.4%, p = 0.871) rates with OPD group before IPTW, and MIPD was not related with survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-1.26, p = 0.18) and recurrence (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67-1.53, p = 0.949) after IPTW with consideration of potential mediators. Sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching also showed similar results for survival (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.32-1.44, p = 0.312) and recurrence (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.67-1.88, p = 0.653).
conclusionMIPD and OPD groups showed similar postoperative and oncologic outcomes. MIPD could be a considerable treatment option without oncological compromise in high-volume centers.
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.