Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40331890›Full record

ArticleBJS open2025

Predicting postoperative pancreatic fistula after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy using International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery and fistula risk scores: European multicentre retrospective cohort study.

Anouk M L H Emmen, Mahsoem Ali, Bas Groot Koerkamp, Ugo Boggi, I Quintus Molenaar, Olivier R Busch, Thilo Hackert, Luca Moraldi, J Sven Mieog, Daan J Lips and 11 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Anouk M L H EmmenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mahsoem AliCancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0511-6323
Bas Groot KoerkampDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1917-6973
Ugo BoggiDivision of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7505-5896
I Quintus MolenaarDepartment of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Centre Utrecht, St. Antonius Hospital and University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Olivier R BuschDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9605-6831
Thilo HackertDept. of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7012-1196
Luca MoraldiDepartment of Oncology and Robotic Surgery, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
J Sven MieogDepartment of Surgery, Leiden Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3649-8504
Daan J LipsDepartment of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Olivier Saint-MarcService de Chirurgie Digestive, Endocrinienne et Thoracique, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Orleans, Orleans, France.
Misha D P LuyerDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9483-1520
Susan van DierenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Geert KazemierCancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Felix NickelDept. of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Sebastiaan FestenDepartment of Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hjalmar C van SantvoortDepartment of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Centre Utrecht, St. Antonius Hospital and University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Emanuele F KauffmannDivision of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Roeland F de WildeDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Mohammad Abu HilalDepartment of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Marc G BesselinkDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2650-9350

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostoperative pancreatic fistula represents the leading cause of morbidity and mortality after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Various scores have been proposed to stratify patients based on their postoperative pancreatic fistula risk, including three fistula risk scores, and two International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery scores. This study compares the performance of these scores in patients undergoing robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

methodsThis is a multicentre European retrospective study in consecutive patients receiving robotic pancreatoduodenectomy for all indications (April 2014 to December 2021). The performance of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery 4-tier (A-D) risk score, and its 3-tier (A-C) modification (International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery 3-tier), fistula risk scores, alternative-fistula risk scores and the updated alternative-fistula risk scores in postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C prediction were compared based on their discrimination (area under the curve), calibration and clinical utility, evaluated through decision curve analyses.

resultsOverall, 919 patients undergoing robotic pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The rate of grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula was 22.2% (n = 204). The area under the curve for the five scores differed only slightly: International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery 0.63 (95% confidence interval (c.i.) 0.58 to 0.67), International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery 3-tier 0.63 (95% c.i. 0.58 to 0.67), fistula risk scores 0.65 (95% c.i. 0.61 to 0.69), alternative-fistula risk scores 0.64 (95% c.i. 0.60 to 0.68) and updated alternative-fistula risk scores 0.65 (95% c.i. 0.60 to 0.69). The International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery, International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery 3-tier, fistula risk scores and alternative-fistula risk scores underestimated the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula. In contrast, the updated alternative-fistula risk score was well-calibrated at low predicted risks, but overestimated postoperative pancreatic fistula risk for high-risk patients. In decision curve analyses, the updated alternative-fistula risk score showed a higher clinical utility compared with the four other risk scores.

conclusionThe clinical utility of the updated alternative-fistula risk score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy slightly outperformed the four other fistula risk scores, and might be used for patient counselling and patient stratification in clinical practice and research.

Indexed as

Pancreatic FistulaPancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative ComplicationsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedEuropeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID40331890
PMCPMC12056937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.