ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2026
Defining and predicting textbook outcomes in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has emerged as the preferred approach for both benign and malignant lesions located in the pancreatic body and tail. Nevertheless, a notable deficiency persists in the absence of a standardized, procedure-specific metric for evaluating and comparing surgical quality. A composite measure termed "textbook outcome (TO)", which encompasses key short-term endpoints, has been validated in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy but has not yet been established in dedicated LDP cohorts. The definition and prediction of TO in this context could aid in facilitating cross-institutional benchmarking and fostering advancements in quality improvement.
aimTo establish procedure-specific criteria for TO and identify independent predictors of TO failure in patients undergoing LDP.
methodsConsecutive patients who underwent LDP at a single high-volume pancreatic center between January 2015 and August 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. TO was defined as the absence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (grade B/C), severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III), readmission within 30 days, and in-hospital or 30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to identify independent predictors of TO failure, and a nomogram was constructed and internally validated.
resultsAmong 405 eligible patients, 286 (70.6%) attained TO. Multivariable analysis revealed that female sex [odds ratio (OR) = 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.99] conferred a protective effect, while preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (OR = 2.66, 95%CI: 1.05-6.73), pancreatic portal hypertension (OR = 2.81, 95%CI: 1.06-7.45), and cystic-solid (OR = 2.51, 95%CI: 1.34-4.69) or solid lesions (OR = 1.91, 95%CI: 1.06-3.44) were independently associated with TO failure (all
conclusionThe proposed LDP-specific definition of TO is feasible and discriminative, and the developed nomogram provides an objective tool for individualized risk assessment.
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.