ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Transatlantic differences in the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: an international multi-registry analysis.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has emerged as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). However, the extent of variation in the use and outcomes of MIPD in relation to OPD among countries is unclear as international studies using registry data are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the use, patient selection, and outcomes of MIPD and OPD in four transatlantic audits for pancreatic surgery.
methodsA post hoc comparative analysis including consecutive patients after MIPD and OPD from four nationwide and multicenter pancreatic surgery audits from North America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden (2014-2020). Patient factors related to MIPD were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Outcome analyses excluded the Swedish audit because < 100 MIPD were performed during the studied period.
resultsOverall, 44,076 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy were included (29,107 North America, 7586 Germany, 4970 the Netherlands, and 2413 Sweden), including 3328 MIPD procedures (8%). The use of MIPD varied widely among countries (absolute largest difference [ALD] 17%, p < 0.001): 7% North America, 4% Germany, 17% the Netherlands, and 0.1% Sweden. Over time, the use of MIPD increased in North America and the Netherlands (p < 0.001), mostly driven by robotic MIPD, but not in Germany (p = 0.297). Patient factors predicting the use of MIPD included country, later year of operation, better performance status, high POPF-risk score, no vascular resection, and non-malignant indication. Conversion rates were higher in laparoscopic MIPD (range 28-45%), compared to robotic MIPD (range 9-37%). In-hospital/30-day mortality differed among North America, Germany, and the Netherlands; MIPD (2%, 7%, 4%; ALD 5%, p < 0.001) and OPD (2%, 5%, 3%; ALD 3%, p < 0.001), similar to major morbidity; MIPD (25%, 42%, 38%, ALD 17%, p < 0.001) and OPD (25%, 31%, 30%, ALD 6%, p < 0.001), respectively.
conclusionsConsiderable differences were found in the use and outcome, including conversion and mortality rates, of MIPD and OPD among four transatlantic audits for pancreatic surgery. Our findings highlight the need for international collaboration to optimize treatment standards and patient outcome.
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.