SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
A comparative analysis and survival analysis of open versus minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a major public health concern, ranking as the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Traditional surgical approaches often yield suboptimal outcomes, highlighting the need for innovative surgical strategies. Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) has demonstrated improvements in surgical visualization and oncological outcomes. Recently, laparoscopic RAMPS (L-RAMPS) has been introduced as a minimally invasive alternative. Objectives: This meta-analysis aims to compare the safety and efficacy of open RAMPS (O-RAMPS) versus L-RAMPS, focusing on operative outcomes, minimally invasive outcomes, intra-abdominal outcomes, overall postoperative outcomes, and oncologic outcomes. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included prospective or retrospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials comparing L-RAMPS with O-RAMPS. Data were extracted from EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library databases through September 16, 2023. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Statistical analyses included odds ratios (OR), risk differences (RD), mean differences (MD), and survival analyses. Results: Eight studies involving 588 patients were included. O-RAMPS was associated with longer operative times (MD = 39.39 minutes, 95% CI = 22.93 to 55.84) and greater blood loss (MD = -231.84 mL, 95% CI = -312.00 to -151.69). No significant differences were observed in blood transfusion rates, pancreatic fistula rates, delayed gastric emptying, or length of hospital stay. L-RAMPS demonstrated a shorter time to oral feeding (MD = -0.79 days, 95% CI = -1.35 to -0.22). Survival analysis suggested a potentially improved long-term prognosis for L-RAMPS. Conclusion: L-RAMPS offers advantages over O-RAMPS in terms of reduced blood loss, faster time to oral feeding, and potentially better long-term prognosis. Further research is warranted, particularly regarding the learning curve of L-RAMPS and its broader applicability. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42024498383.
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.