Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2026
Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a pilot randomized trial in a developing African country.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is a major abdominal surgery. While laparoscopic PD (LPD) is gaining acceptance globally, its feasibility and safety in low-resource settings require further evaluation. This study aimed to identify the benefits and drawbacks of LPD compared to open PD (OPD) in a developing African country. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis randomized controlled trial included patients with oncologic indications for PD. Participants were randomized into two groups: LPD and OPD. The primary endpoint was length of hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and mortality, blood loss, and the need for transfusion of blood products. The secondary outcomes were the operative time in minutes, pain VAS scores, duration to ambulation, gastrointestinal (GIT) recovery, and the quality of oncological resection.
resultsA total of 68 patients were initially screened for eligibility, of whom 48 were randomized and underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD: n = 30; OPD: n = 18). Twenty patients discontinued the intervention after randomization due to withdrawal or peri-induction instability, resulting in a dropout rate of 29.4%. The duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LPD group (8.1 ± 5.6 days) than the OPD group (10.6 ± 6.1 days, p = 0.049). LPD also demonstrated lower intraoperative blood loss, reduced transfusion rates, faster gastrointestinal recovery, and earlier ambulation. Oncologic outcomes, including margin status and lymph node yield, were comparable between groups.
conclusionLPD resulted in a significantly shorter hospital stay compared to OPD, confirming its benefit in postoperative recovery. Despite a longer operative time, LPD showed advantages in blood loss, transfusion needs, and functional recovery, while maintaining comparable oncologic safety. These findings support the feasibility and potential value of LPD in selected patients, even within a resource-constrained setting.
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.