↓ Skip to main content

Stapler versus scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant for distal pancreatectomy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Stapler versus scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant for distal pancreatectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008688.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pascal Probst, Felix J Hüttner, Ulla Klaiber, Phillip Knebel, Alexis Ulrich, Markus W Büchler, Markus K Diener

Abstract

Resections of the pancreatic body and tail reaching to the left of the superior mesenteric vein are defined as distal pancreatectomy. Most distal pancreatectomies are elective treatments for chronic pancreatitis, benign or malignant diseases, and they have high morbidity rates of up to 40%. Pancreatic fistula formation is the main source of postoperative morbidity, associated with numerous further complications. Researchers have proposed several surgical resection and closure techniques of the pancreatic remnant in an attempt to reduce these complications. The two most common techniques are scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant and stapler resection and closure. To compare the rates of pancreatic fistula in people undergoing distal pancreatectomy using scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant versus stapler resection and closure. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis and Science Citation Index from database inception to October 2015. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stapler versus scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant for distal pancreatectomy (irrespective of language or publication status). Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted the data. Taking into consideration the clinical heterogeneity between the trials (e.g. different endpoint definitions), we analysed data using a random-effects model with Review Manager (RevMan), calculating risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). In two eligible trials, a total of 381 participants underwent distal pancreatic resection and were randomised to closure of the pancreatic remnant either with stapler (n = 191) or scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure (n = 190). One was a single centre pilot RCT and the other was a multicentre blinded RCT. The single centre pilot RCT evaluated 69 participants in five intervention arms (stapler, hand-sewn, fibrin glue, mesh and pancreaticojejunostomy), although we only assessed the stapler and hand-sewn closure groups (14 and 15 participants, respectively). The multicentre RCT had two interventional arms: stapler (n = 177) and hand-sewn closure (n = 175). The rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was the main outcome, and it occurred in 79 of 190 participants in the hand-sewn group compared to 65 of 191 participants in the stapler group. Neither the individual trials nor the meta-analysis showed a significant difference between resection techniques (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.45; P = 0.66). In the same way, postoperative mortality and operation time did not differ significantly. The single centre RCT had an unclear risk of bias in the randomisation, allocation and both blinding domains. However, the much larger multicentre RCT had a low risk of bias in all domains. Due to the small number of events and the wide confidence intervals that cannot exclude clinically important benefit or harm with stapler versus hand-sewn closure, there is a serious possibility of imprecision, making the overall quality of evidence moderate. The quality of evidence is moderate and mainly based on the high weight of the results of one multicentre RCT. Unfortunately, there are no other completed RCTs on this topic except for one relevant ongoing trial. Neither stapler nor scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant for distal pancreatectomy showed any benefit compared to the other method in terms of postoperative pancreatic fistula, overall postoperative mortality or operation time. Currently, the choice of closure is left up to the preference of the individual surgeon and the anatomical characteristics of the patient. Another (non-European) multicentre trial (e.g. with an equality or non-inferiority design) would help to corroborate the findings of this meta-analysis. Future trials assessing novel methods of stump closure should compare them either with stapler or hand-sewn closure as a control group to ensure comparability of results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Other 9 7%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 36 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 41 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2015.
All research outputs
#7,554,582
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,923
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,211
of 276,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#212
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.