ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2025
Comparison of three reconstruction techniques performed after pancreaticoduodenectomy: Using external, internal, or no stent.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most frequent cause of morbimortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy, but the best technique to use to prevent its development is unclear. The choice of drainage method external duct stent (EDS), internal duct stent (IDS), or non-ductal stent (NDS) is also controversial.
aimTo compare the three groups (EDS, IDS and NDS), analyzing the patient characteristics, perioperative examinations and survival.
methodsPatients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy and pancreaticojejunostomy between 2012 and 2020, were divided into the EDS, IDS and NDS groups.
resultsOf the 244 patients included, 129 were in the EDS group, 71 in the IDS group, and 44 in the NDS group. Except for preoperative pancreatitis in the NDS patients, comorbidities were similar among the groups. Patients in the NDS group had a high caliber of the Wirsung duct and frequently presented with a hard pancreas (
conclusionThe use of the EDS was a protective factor for grade B/C POPF and 90-day mortality, and the Wirsung duct < 3 mm was a risk factor for grade B/C POPF and 90-day mortality.
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.