Trial reportPloS one2024
Introduction of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy following phase 2a IDEAL guidelines.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is a newly introduced procedure, which is still evolving and lacks standardization. An objective assessment is essential to investigate the feasibility of RPD. The current study aimed to assess our initial ten cases of RPD based on IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term study) guidelines.
methodsThis was a prospective phase 2a study following the IDEAL framework. Ten consecutive cases of RPD performed by two surgeons with expertise in open procedures at a single center were assigned to the study. With objective evaluation, each case was classified into four grades according to the achievements of the procedures. Errors observed in the previous case were used to inform the procedure in the next case. The surgical outcomes of the ten cases were reviewed.
resultsThe median total operation time was 634 min (interquartile range [IQR], 594-668) with a median resection time of 363 min (IQR, 323-428) and reconstruction time of 123 min (IQR, 107-131). The achievement of the whole procedure was graded as A, "successful", in two patients. In two patients, reconstruction was performed with a mini-laparotomy due to extensive pneumoperitoneum, probably caused by insertion of a liver retractor from the xyphoid. Major postoperative complications occurred in two patients. One patient, in whom the jejunal limb was elevated through the Treitz ligament, had a bowel obstruction and needed to undergo re-laparotomy.
conclusionsRPD is feasible when performed by surgeons experienced in open procedures. Specific considerations are needed to safely introduce RPD.
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.