Trial reportAnnals of surgery2025
Blumgart Anastomosis Versus Invaginating Pancreatogastrostomy for Reconstruction after Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Annals of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Postoperative pancreatic fistula: a bibliometric analysis of research trends and a meta-analysis on the association with intra pancreatic fat deposition.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Horizontal hexagonal six-stitch pancreaticojejunostomy (HEXA-PJ): a simple and reproducible anastomotic technique.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Understanding pancreatic reconstruction after pancreatoduodenectomy: lessons in technique and biology.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and pancreatic surgery in the 21st century: triumphs, turning points, and unresolved challenges.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
- Article
- Pancreatic anastomotic technique during pancreaticoduodenectomy: does it boil down to surgeon preference?Gland surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rates between Blumgart anastomosis (BA) and invaginating pancreatogastrostomy (PG) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD).
backgroundPOPF rates after PD are still high. The only modifiable factor available to improve POPF is the anastomotic technique. BA and PG anastomoses have been previously shown to be feasible and safe, but they have never been compared in a randomized trial.
methodsA multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in 13 University Hospitals. Eligible patients were those presenting a pancreatic or periampullary neoplasm undergoing PD. Assignment to each group (BA or PG) was randomized by blocks and stratified by centers. The primary endpoint was the rate of POPF with special assessment of clinically relevant (grade B-C) POPF; secondary endpoints were postoperative (p.o.) complications, factors related to POPF and quality of life (QoL).
resultsTwo hundred sixteen patients were randomized. POPF and B-C POPF were 44% to 28% in BA group and 34% to 23% in PG group ( P = 0.39 and P = 0.74, respectively). Overall complications, severe complications and mortality rates were 76%, 24%, and 3.7% respectively, in the BA group, and 73%, 32%, and 5.9%, in the PG group, with no significant differences. Soft pancreatic consistency, small preoperative Computed Tomography Wirsung diameter, patient age, and first p.o. drain amylase concentration were independently associated with B-C POPF. QoL functional scales favoured the PG anastomosis at 9 months.
conclusionsBA and PG showed no differences in POPF and p.o. outcomes; B-C POPF can be predicted based on several pre-intra and early p.o. parameters; QoL favoured PG anastomosis at 9 months.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40747945What 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.