ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
Current practice in pancreatic stump management during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: results of a national survey from the IGOMIPS registry.
Article in Updates in surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has become more common in recent years, offering shorter recovery times and fewer perioperative complications compared to open surgery. However, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains a major concern, driving the search for effective stump management strategies to minimize complications and healthcare costs.
methodsBetween February and March 2025, a 25-item Google Forms questionnaire was emailed to the lead surgeons of all 44 IGOMIPS centers. One response per center was requested. The questionnaire covered a wide range of topics, including the preferred surgical platform (laparoscopic vs robotic), types of transection devices (motorized or non-motorized staplers, energy-based tools), use of staple-line reinforcement, pre-firing compression durations, and postoperative drain-management practices. Descriptive analyses were performed and correlated with existing literature.
resultsA total of 36 invited centers, each utilizing minimally invasive surgical techniques for distal pancreatectomy, completed the survey (response rate: 81.8%, 36/44). The adopted surgical platform was robotic in 14 centers (38.9%), laparoscopic in 11 (30.6%) and mixed in 11 (30.6%). Parenchymal transection relied on motorised staplers in 24 centers (66.7%), conventional staplers in 8 (22.2%) and energy-based devices in 2 (5.6%); two centers (5.5%) tailored the device to gland thickness. Pre-firing compression lasted < 1 min in 6 centers (16.7%), 1-3 min in 16 (44.4%) and > 3 min in 6 (16.7%), while 7 centers (19.4%) had no fixed interval. Staple-line reinforcement was never used in 14 centers (38.9%), always used in 6 (16.7%) and applied selectively in the remainder. Routine prophylactic drainage was practised by 32 centers (88.9%); drains were removed < POD 5 in 14 (38.9%).
conclusionThe marked heterogeneity in stump-management techniques in MIDP highlights the absence of robust, standardized guidelines, reflecting persistent controversies in the literature. Respondents expressed strong interest in future multicenter trials to establish evidence-based protocols, emphasizing that collaborative, large-scale research is crucial for improving patient outcomes and reducing the risk of POPF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41530634What 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.