ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for distal cholangiocarcinoma and impact factors on textbook outcome.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Review
- Development of a prediction model integrating cardiac ultrasound parameters for cardiac complications after distal cholangiocarcinoma surgery: a retrospective cohort study.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDistal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA) is an aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis. This study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes and "textbook outcome (TO)" between laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for dCCA after the learning curve of surgeons.
methodsClinical and follow-up data were included for dCCA patients treated with LPD or OPD at our center between January 2017 and December 2022. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to minimize bias between groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine independent prognostic factors for TO.
resultsA total of 430 patients were enrolled in the study, 224 in the LPD group and 206 in the OPD group. After PSM, 184 patients were included in each group. There were no significant differences in operative duration, lymph nodes harvest, intraoperative transfusion, vascular resection, R0 resection, severe complications, readmission rate, 30-day mortality, TO, and long-term prognosis between the two groups before and after PSM (all P > 0.05). Compared with OPD, LPD had less estimated blood loss (160 vs. 250mL, P < 0.001) and shorter postoperative length of stay (13 vs. 16 days, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that texture of pancreas [hard vs. soft, Odds Ratio (OR) 2.016; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.276-3.184; P = 0.003] and operation duration (> 360 min vs. ≤ 360 min, OR 0.595, 95% CI 0.375-0.944, P = 0.027) were independent prognostic factors for TO.
conclusionsAfter learning curve, LPD is safe and feasible for the treatment of dCCA, with the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss and faster postoperative recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39890614What 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.