ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Extended lymphadenectomy based on the TRIANGLE for pancreatic head cancer: a single-center experience.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Progress of Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Cancer Treatment-Lessons Learned and Future Challenges.Cancers · 2026Review
- Prognostic outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy with lymph node dissection in pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinoma; a retrospective cohort study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of superior mesenteric artery (SMA) adherent tissue in the context of pancreatic head resections- an observational study.BMC cancer · 2026Observational
- Pancreatic Cancer Frequently Infiltrates the TRIANGLE Compartment: A Surgical Option to Prevent Local Recurrence.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026Article
- Article
- Differential Diagnostic Value of Gastrointestinal Ultrasound Contrast Filling Method in Differentiating Gastric Tumors and Ulcers in the Elderly.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study was to compare the safety and efficacy of different lymphadenectomy methods in patients with pancreatic head cancer undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 150 patients were included in this study. Patients were divided into Group A (n = 79), Group B (n = 44), and Group C (n = 27) according to the different lymphadenectomy methods. The clinical endpoint was time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). Postoperative complications of different lymphadenectomy methods were compared respectively. TTP and OS of the three groups were compared by Kaplan-Meier curves.
resultsThere were no significant differences between the three groups in operative time (P = 0.300), death in the hospital (P = 0.253), postoperative hemorrhage (P = 0.863), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) B/C (P = 0.306), bile leakage (P = 0.215), intestinal fistula (P = 0.177), lymphatic leakage (P = 0.267), delayed gastric emptying [(DGE) (P = 0.283)], ICU stay (P = 0.506), and postoperative hospital stay [(PHS) (P = 0.810)]. Median TTP in Groups B and C was significantly longer than in Group A (log-rank test, A vs B: P = 0.0005, A vs C: P = 0.0001). Median OS between the three groups has no statistical difference (P = 0.1546).
conclusionsExtended lymphadenectomy methods based on the TRIANGLE do not increase perioperative complications significantly and can effectively delay tumor progression in patients with pancreatic head cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38321184What 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.