Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36943448›Full record

ArticleSurgery today2023

Anterior versus posterior radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic body and tail cancer: an inverse probability of treatment weighting with survival analysis.

Naohisa Kuriyama, Koki Maeda, Toru Shinkai, Takahiro Ito, Kazuyuki Gyoten, Aoi Hayasaki, Takehiro Fujii, Yusuke Iizawa, Yasuhiro Murata, Akihiro Tanemura and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgery today, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Naohisa KuriyamaDepartment of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Mie University School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan. naokun@med.mie-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9668-0500
Koki MaedaDepartment of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Mie University School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Toru ShinkaiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Mie University School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Takahiro ItoDepartment of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Mie University School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Kazuyuki GyotenDepartment of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Mie University School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Aoi HayasakiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Mie University School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Takehiro FujiiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Mie University School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Yusuke IizawaDepartment of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Mie University School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Yasuhiro MurataDepartment of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Mie University School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Akihiro TanemuraDepartment of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Mie University School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Masashi KishiwadaDepartment of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Mie University School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Motonori NagataDepartment of Radiology, Mie University School of Medicine, Tsu, Mie, Japan.
Shuhei IchikawaDepartment of General Medicine, Mie University School of Medicine, Tsu, Mie, Japan.
Shugo MizunoDepartment of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Mie University School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Mie University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRadical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) is a standard procedure for patients with pancreatic body and tail cancer. There are two types of RAMPS: anterior and posterior, but their indications and surgical outcomes remain unclear. We compared the surgical outcomes, postoperative course, and prognosis between anterior and posterior RAMPS.

methodsBetween 2007 and 2020, 105 consecutive patients who underwent RAMPS for pancreatic body and tail cancers were divided into an anterior RAMPS group (n = 30) and a posterior RAMPS group (n = 75). To adjust for differences in preoperative characteristics and intraoperative procedures, an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was done, using propensity scores.

resultsAfter IPTW adjustment, the postoperative body temperature of the posterior RAMPS group and the amount of drain discharge in the anterior RAMPS group were significantly lower, from postoperative days (PODs) 1 to 3, but there were no differences in postoperative complications, recurrence patterns, or prognosis between the two groups. Regarding the diagnostic ability of multidetector-row computed tomography (MD-CT) for direct tumor involvement of the left adrenal gland, the sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 90.0%, respectively.

conclusionPancreatic body and tail cancer without apparent preoperative direct tumor involvement of the left adrenal gland on MD-CT may be sufficient indication for anterior RAMPS.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPancreatic NeoplasmsHumansPancreatectomyProbabilitySplenectomySurvival AnalysisAnteriorPancreatic cancerPosteriorPrognosisRadical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy

Identifiers

PMID36943448
OpenAlexW4328048169

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.