Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40413707›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2025

How do it: tips and tricks during full-robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

T Piardi, G Badessi, S A Biondo, C Del Basso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

T PiardiSimone Veil Hospital, UniversityofReimsChampagne-Ardenne, Troyes, France.
G BadessiCHU Reims, UniversityofReimsChampagne-Ardenne, Reims, France. giorgio.badessi@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7773-0971
S A BiondoPoliclinico G. Martino, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
C Del BassoCHU Reims, UniversityofReimsChampagne-Ardenne, Reims, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is increasingly recognized as a standard procedure due to its minimally invasive nature and associated benefits such as reduced blood loss and faster recovery. This paper presents a set of tips and tricks, focusing on the management of pancreatic and biliary sections, the application of the falciform ligament for vascular protection, and the precise positioning of drainage systems. Key strategies include the use of 4/0 PDS stitches to control pancreatic vessel bleeding, preventing ischemia by refraining from the use of energy during pancreas dissection, and ensuring optimal drainage placement. The incorporation of a modified Blumgart anastomosis with a single-thread technique and the use of hydrogel sheets are also highlighted as crucial in reducing fistula formation. We think that these measures can significantly lower the incidence and severity of POPF and postoperative bleeding, thereby enhancing surgical outcomes. This paper aims to contribute to the growing body of knowledge on RPD, offering practical tips that can be safely and effectively integrated into routine clinical practice.

Indexed as

PancreaticoduodenectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAnastomosis, SurgicalBlood Loss, SurgicalDrainageHumansPancreasPancreatic FistulaPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative HemorrhagePancreaticoduodenectomyRobotic pancreaticoduodenectomyRPD

Identifiers

PMID40413707
PMCPMC12263747

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.