Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39164439›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024

Comparisons of laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy using barbed and conventional sutures for pancreaticojejunostomy: a propensity score matching study.

Wenjing Liu, Haomin Chen, Bo Ren, Pengyu Li, Lixin Chen, Qiang Xu, Xianlin Han, Qiaofei Liu, Weijie Chen, Menghua Dai

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Wenjing Liu *Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Haomin Chen *Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Bo Ren *Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Pengyu LiDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Lixin ChenDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Qiang XuDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Xianlin HanDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Qiaofei LiuDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Weijie ChenDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Menghua DaiDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuai Fu Yuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China. daimh@pumch.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-7273-6282

Funding

National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding 2022-PUMCH-D-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are limited data on the effect of different sutures and surgical approaches on the quality of pancreaticojejunostomy in minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). This study compares the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) between the use of barbed sutures (BSs) and conventional sutures (CSs).

methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on 253 consecutive patients who had undergone MIPD from July 2016 to April 2023. Patients were excluded if conversion to open surgery or open anastomosis was necessary. 220 patients were enrolled and divided into BS (n = 148) and CS (n = 72) groups. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), 67 cases remained in each group. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified factors associated with CR-POPF. Comparisons were also made between laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) pancreaticoduodenectomy.

resultsAfter PSM, BSs were associated with significantly lower rates of CR-POPF (7.5 vs. 22.4%, P = 0.015) and severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) (7.5vs. 19.4%, P = 0.043). No significant differences were found in operative time, length of postoperative hospital stay, or other major morbidities. Multivariate analyses revealed BMI

conclusionsIn conclusion, using BSs for PJ during MIPD is feasible and has the potential to reduce CR-POPF and severe complications.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPancreatic FistulaPancreaticoduodenectomyPancreaticojejunostomyPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePancreatic NeoplasmsBarbed suturesMinimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomyPancreaticojejunostomyPostoperative pancreatic fistula

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.