ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Proposal for grading of intraoperative bleeding and the assessment of hemostasis quality during robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Video-based characterization of intraoperative bleeding patterns and hemostasis behaviors in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Mastering Robotic SMA Dissection: How the Correct Anatomical Concept Refines Technical Steps in the Left Posterior Approach.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoperative bleeding severity and hemostasis quality have not been objectively evaluated.
methodsRobot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) cases between April 2021 and June 2023 were selected. Intraoperative bleeding scenes were extracted from the resection videos. Additionally, bleeding scenes leading to open conversion due to difficulty in achieving hemostasis were extracted from cases between October 2020 and March 2025. In each bleeding scene, the pixel index (PI), defined as the number of red pixels 1 s after bleeding onset, and the hemostatic method were used to grade the bleeding severity. Hemostatic time was also assessed to evaluate hemostasis quality.
resultsA total of 885 bleeding scenes and four scenes requiring open conversion were included. The areas under the curve (AUC) of the PI predicting non-cauterization and open conversion procedures were 0.846 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.802-0.890; cutoff: 12041) and 0.990 (95% CI: 0.977-1.000; cutoff: 62084), respectively. Bleeding was graded as grade 1 (PI < 12000, cauterization), grade 2 (12000 ≤ PI < 60000, other procedures), or grade 3 (PI ≥ 60000, open laparotomy). The receiver operating characteristic curve for the number of hemostatic procedures ≥ 15 s and total blood loss ≥ 100 ml had the highest AUC at 0.879. Hemostasis requiring < 15 s was considered effective, whereas hemostasis requiring ≥ 15 s was considered difficult.
conclusionsWe proposed a grading system for intraoperative bleeding and hemostasis during RPD. This study provides a quantitative framework for future research, enabling objective recommendations for surgical hemostatic strategies. This grading classification system was developed based on a dataset from a single-institution. Therefore, it has not yet been validated using data from external institutions or sources. Accordingly, this grading classification should be regarded as a proposed system, and this study should be considered exploratory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41201590What 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.