Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39176340›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Readmissions Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Experience From a Tertiary Care Center in India.

Rajneesh Kumar Singh, Krishna Rao Gurana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rajneesh Kumar SinghDepartment of Surgical Gastroenterology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS), Lucknow, IND.
Krishna Rao GuranaDepartment of Surgical Gastroenterology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS), Lucknow, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background An enhanced recovery approach in surgery helps early postoperative discharge. With the decreasing trend of morbidity and mortality in recent times in patients undergoing complex procedures such as pancreaticoduodenectomy, readmissions are the next major concern. The causes and outcomes of these readmissions should be investigated for their impact on patient care and prevention. Methodology A total of 997 patients discharged after pancreaticoduodenectomy from a tertiary care center in northern India, between 1989 and 2021, were studied retrospectively to assess the readmission rate for sequelae after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The causes, interventions, outcomes, and predictive factors were studied. Results A total of 103 (10.3%) patients required readmission for sequelae after pancreaticoduodenectomy, and 52 (50.4%) patients required interventions. The most common cause for readmission in our study was intra-abdominal collection (n = 23, 22.3%). Of these 103 patients, 63 (61.2%) had good outcomes, 36 (34.9%) had fair outcomes, and four (3.9%) had bad outcomes. Overall, 53 (51.5%) of 103 patients were readmitted within 30 days of discharge, most commonly with intra-abdominal collection (16 of 53, 30.1%). Of these 53 patients, 22 (41.5%) required interventions, 34 (64.1%) had good outcomes, and 27 (50.9%) were readmitted within seven days of discharge. Of these 27 patients, 12 (44.4%) required interventions, with 24 (88.8%) experiencing good outcomes. Of the 103 patients, 12 (11.6%) were readmitted between 31 and 90 days, mostly due to external stent, T-tube, or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage-related problems. Overall, 38 (36.9%) of 103 patients were readmitted after 90 days, mostly with incisional hernia and strictured hepaticojejunostomy. Of these 38 patients, 26 (68.4%) required intervention, and 23 (60.5%) had good outcomes. A previous history of cholangitis (odds ratio (OR) = 1.771, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.17-2.67, p = 0.007), postoperative fever (OR = 1.628, 95% CI = 1.081-2.452, p = 0.02), wound infection (OR = 2.011, 95% CI = 1.332-3.035, p = 0.001), and wound dehiscence (OR = 2.136, 95% CI = 1.333-3.423, p = 0.002) predicted readmission on univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed a previous history of cholangitis (OR = 1.755, CI = 1.158-2.659, p = 0.008) and wound infection (OR = 1.995, 95% CI = 1.320-2.690, p = 0.001) as factors independently predicting readmission. Conclusions Readmitted patients have high intervention rates and good recovery rates. Readmissions should not be considered a scale for poor healthcare. Patient education, proper management of postoperative complications, and a properly designed discharge care system can help tackle this problem.

Indexed as

interventionoutcomepancreaticoduodenectomy (pd)readmissionssequela of surgery

Identifiers

PMID39176340
PMCPMC11338694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.