ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024
Significance of Specimen Extraction Site in Minimizing Hernia Risk After Distal Pancreatectomy.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIncisional hernia (IH) results in significant morbidity to patients and financial burden to healthcare systems. We aimed to determine the incidence of IH in distal pancreatectomy (DP) patients, stratified by specimen extraction sites.
methodImaging in DP patients in our institution from 2016 to 2021 were reviewed by radiologists blinded to the operative approach. Specimen extraction sites were stratified as upper midline/umbilical (UM) versus Pfannenstiel. IH was defined as fascial defect on postoperative imaging. Patients without preoperative and postoperative imaging were excluded.
resultsOf the 219 patients who met our selection criteria, the median age was 64 years, 54% were female, and 64% were White. The majority were minimally invasive (MIS) procedures (n = 131, 60%), of which 52% (n = 64) had a UM incision for specimen extraction, including 45 hand-assist and 19 purely laparoscopic procedures. MIS with Pfannenstiel incisions for specimen extraction was 48% (n = 58), including 44 robotic and 14 purely laparoscopic procedures. Mean follow-up time was 16.3 months (standard deviation [SD] 20.8). Follow-up for MIS procedures with UM incisions was 16.6 months (SD 21.8) versus 15.5 months (SD 18.6) in the Pfannenstiel group (p = 0.30). MIS procedures with UM incisions for specimen extraction had a 17.8 times increase in odds of developing an IH compared with MIS procedures with Pfannenstiel extraction sites (p = 0.01). The overall odds of developing an IH increased by 4% for every month of follow-up (odds ratio 1.04; p < 0.001).
conclusionA Pfannenstiel incision should be performed for specimen extraction in cases with purely laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy, when feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39192012What 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.