ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
One hundred consecutive pancreatic resections using a novel pancreatico-jejunostomy technique.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Omental wrapping of the pancreaticojejunostomy during pancreatoduodenectomy to prevent clinically relevant POPF: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis featuring geographic subgroup analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Application of an improved continuous single-layer pancreaticojejunostomy technique in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2026Article
- Does neoadjuvant therapy reduce pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary multivisceral resections involving the upper digestive tract: a United Kingdom tertiary cancer centre experience.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo single technique of remnant pancreas reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has been demonstrated to be superior to the others in the prevention of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF), and the accumulation of surgical experience is closely related to the quality of this anastomosis. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the feasibility and patient outcomes of a simplified technique involving a single-layer continuous pancreaticojejunostomy (PJA) with Falciform ligament reinforcement that can be used with all types of pancreases.
methodsA single-centre and single-surgeon study was performed. One hundred consecutive patients undergoing pancreatic resection with subsequent PJA using a novel technique performed by a single surgeon were included in the study. Patient demographics, pre-operative treatments, risk factors for POPF, and post-operative morbidity and mortality and long-term patient outcome were prospectively recorded and reported.
resultsFrom March 2018 to March 2022, 59 male and 41 female patients were included. 91 patients underwent PD for malignancy with 32 receiving neoadjuvant treatment. 59 patients were classified as intermediate/high risk for POPF according to validated fistula prediction models. There were 12 POPF Type B and 2 POPF Type C. The overall morbidity rate was 16% with no 90-day mortality. 3 patients underwent reoperation. The median length of hospitalisation was 12.6 days and 82% of eligible patients commenced and completed adjuvant chemotherapy.
conclusionSingle-layer continuous dunking PJA with Falciform ligament reinforcement is a simplified and feasible method for PJA with a low associated complication rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38847886What 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.