SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2024
Safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive central pancreatectomy versus open central pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic management of intraductal oncocytic papillary neoplasm of the pancreas: Two case reports and review of literature.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCentral pancreatectomy is a surgical procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors which located in the neck and proximal body of the pancreas that facilitates the preservation of pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions but has a high morbidity rate, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy (MICP) and open central pancreatectomy (OCP) basing on perioperative outcomes.
methodsAn extensive literature search to compare MICP and OCP was conducted from October 2003 to October 2023 on PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Fixed-effect models or random effects were selected based on heterogeneity, and pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
resultsA total of 10 studies with a total of 510 patients were included. There was no significant difference in POPF between MICP and OCP (OR = 0.95; 95% CI [0.64, 1.43]; P = 0.82), whereas intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 125.13; 95% CI [- 194.77, -55.49]; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD = - 2.86; 95% CI [- 5.00, - 0.72]; P = 0.009) were in favor of MICP compared to OCP, and there was a strong trend toward a lower intraoperative transfusion rate in MICP than in OCP (MD = 0.34; 95% CI [0.11, 1.00]; P = 0.05). There was no significant difference in other outcomes between the two groups.
conclusionMICP was as safe and effective as OCP and had less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay. However, further studies are needed to confirm the results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38816619What 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.