ReviewBMC surgery2025
Surgical techniques for modular one-stage emergent pancreaticoduodenectomy for blunt abdominal trauma: experiences from three centres and a review of the literature.
Review in BMC surgery, 2025. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we report the use of a complex surgical intervention termed modular one-stage emergent pancreaticoduodenectomy (MOEPD) for the treatment of acute Grade IV or V pancreaticoduodenal injuries in haemodynamically stable patients. We summarize the experiences of surgeons performing MOEPD in 12 patients from 3 centres.
methodsFrom 2015 to 2021, the clinical data of patients with blunt abdominal trauma who underwent MOEPD were extracted from three Chinese centres. The patients' perioperative variables were assessed.
resultsAll twelve MOEPD cases were analysed. All patients had Grade IV or V pancreatoduodenal injuries and received intensive antishock treatment for haemodynamic stabilization. The mean age of the patients was approximately 45.2 years (22-74 years). Ten patients (83.3%) were male. In contrast to the ten patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), two patients underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Two patients presented with a combination of severe abdominal injuries. None the patients died in the perioperative period. Five patients (41.7%) experienced postoperative complications. A postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was detected in 16.7% of patients, both of whom recovered within 3-4 weeks with conservative drainage. All patients were released from the institutions after an average of 31.8 days (21-53 days). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications between the 20 reviewed studies and this group (60.7% vs. 41.7%, P = 0.33), but the mortality rate was lower in this group (26.6% vs. 0%, P = 0.04).
conclusionsThe experiences at these 3 centres suggest that MOEPD may be a lifesaving procedure for haemodynamically stable patients with acute Grade IV or V pancreatoduodenal injuries, despite the small sample size of this study. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.