Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36097095›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023

Which one is better? Laparoscopic versus robotic reconstruction in the remnant soft pancreas with a small pancreatic duct following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a multicenter study with propensity score matching analysis.

Jae Young Jang, Chang Moo Kang, Hyeyeon Kim, Munseok Choi, Jae Hoon Lee, Sung Hoon Choi

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jae Young Jang *Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.
Chang Moo Kang *Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hyeyeon KimDivision of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Ulsan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Munseok ChoiDepartment of Surgery, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, Republic of Korea.
Jae Hoon LeeDivision of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Ulsan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. hbpsurgeon@gmail.com.
Sung Hoon ChoiDivision of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Republic of Korea. feel415@cha.ac.kr.ORCID 0000-0002-1664-3727
Asan Medical Center · KRCHA University Bundang Medical Center · KRYonsei University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence of the advantages of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) over laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is limited. Thus, this study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic reconstruction L-recon) versus robotic reconstruction (R-recon) in patients with soft pancreas and small pancreatic duct.

methodAmong 429 patients treated with minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) between October 2012 and June 2020 by three surgeons at three institutions, 201 patients with a soft pancreas and a small pancreatic duct (< 3 mm) were included in this study.

resultsSixty pairs of patients who underwent L-recon and R-recon were selected after propensity score matching. The perioperative outcomes were comparable between the reconstruction approaches, with comparable clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) rates (15.0% [L-recon] vs. 13.3% [R-recon]). The sub-analysis according to the type of MIPD procedure also showed comparable outcomes, but only a significant difference in postoperative hospital stay was identified. During the learning curve analysis using the cumulative summation by operation time (CUSUM

conclusionPostoperative pancreatic fistula rates and the overall perioperative outcomes of L-recon and R-recon were comparable in patients with soft-textured pancreas and small pancreatic duct treated by experienced surgeons.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansPancreasPancreatic DuctsPancreatic FistulaPancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesLaparoscopicPancreatic fistulaPancreaticoduodenectomyRoboticSoft pancreas

Identifiers

PMID36097095
OpenAlexW4295519934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.