4.6 Article

Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (TJDBPS01): study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033490

关键词

-

资金

  1. Hubei Natural Science Foundation [WJ2017Z010]
  2. Tongji Hospital Clinical Research Flagship Program [2019CR203]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the most complex abdominal operations to perform, and it is usually conducted for tumours of the periampullary region and chronic pancreatitis. Minimally invasive surgery has been progressively being developed for pancreatic surgery, first with the advent of hybrid-laparoscopy and recently with total laparoscopic surgery. Issues including the safety and efficacy of total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) are currently being debated. Studies comparing these two surgical techniques are emerging, and large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are lacking but are clearly required. Methods and analysis TJDBPS01 is a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority trial in 14 centres with pancreatic surgery experts who have performed >= 104 TLPDs and OPDs. A total of 656 patients who will undergo PD are randomly allocated to the TLPD group or OPD group in a 1:1 ratio. The trial hypothesis is that TLPD has superior or equivalent safety and advantages in postoperative recovery compared with OPD. The primary outcome is the postoperative length of stay. Ethics and dissemination The Instituitional Review Board Approval of Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology has approved this trial and will be routinely monitoring the trial at frequent intervals, as will an independent third-party organisation. Any results from this trial (publications, conference presentations) will be published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据