ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Advancing minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: ensuring safety with implementation.
Article 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.
- Reaching proficiency in robotic liver surgery in two high-volume European HPB centers.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- The implementation of a robotic surgical platform for the treatment of patients with malignant or pre-malignant pancreatic tumors at the University Medical Center Ljubljana.Radiology and oncology · 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
backgroundAlthough minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary (MIS HPB) surgery can be performed with good outcomes, there are currently no standardized requirements for centers or surgeons who wish to implement MIS HPB surgery. The aim of this study was to create a consensus statement regarding safe dissemination and implementation of MIS HPB surgical programs.
methodsSixteen key questions regarding safety in MIS HPB surgery were generated after a focused literature search and iterative review by three field experts. Participants for the working group were then selected using sequential purposive sampling and snowball techniques. Review of the 16 questions took place over a single 2-h meeting. The senior author facilitated the session, and a modified nominal group technique was used.
resultsTwenty three surgeons were in attendance. All participants agreed or strongly agreed that formal guidelines should exist for both institutions and individual surgeons interested in implementing MIS HPB surgery and that routine monitoring and reporting of institutional and surgeon technical outcomes should be performed. Regarding volume cutoffs, most participants (91%) agreed or strongly agreed that a minimum annual institutional volume cutoff for complex MIS HPB surgery, such as major hepatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy, should exist. A smaller proportion (74%) agreed or strongly agreed that a minimum annual surgeon volume requirement should exist. The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that surgeons were responsible for defining (100%) and enforcing (78%) guidelines to ensure the overall safety of MIS HPB programs. Finally, formal MIS HPB training, minimum case volume requirements, institutional support and infrastructure, and mandatory collection of outcomes data were all recognized as important aspects of safe implementation of MIS HPB surgery.
conclusionsSafe implementation of MIS HPB surgery requires a thoughtful process that incorporates structured training, sufficient volume and expertise, a proper institutional ecosystem, and monitoring of outcomes.
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.