Scholarlink

Objective <p> The objective was to evaluate historical and contemporary trends in the terminology used to describe pancreatic head resection procedures in the English-language medical literature and to assess whether nomenclature use has changed over time and whether linguistic accuracy aligns with term prevalence.</p> Methods <p>A bibliometric analysis was conducted using a comprehensive title and abstract-based search across PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, encompassing all available publications through December 2023. Articles were included if their titles or abstracts contained any of the following terms: “pancreatoduodenectomy,” “pancreaticoduodenectomy,” “duodenopancreatectomy,” “Whipple procedure,” “pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy,” or “pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy.” There were no restrictions on article type, publication year, or original language. Duplicate entries were removed, and exact match algorithms were used to identify and quantify terminology usage across titles and abstracts. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze frequency trends by year.</p> Results <p>Of 28,933 identified records, 17,037 unique publications were included for analysis. From 1943 to the early 2000’s, term usage was relatively balanced. However, from 2004 to 2023, “pancreaticoduodenectomy” accounted for 65.7% of all titles, and “pancreatoduodenectomy” appeared in 27.9%. The use of “duodenopancreatectomy” and other variants declined markedly. Despite grammatical and etymological evidence favoring “pancreatoduodenectomy,” the less accurate “pancreaticoduodenectomy” has become increasingly dominant.</p> Conclusion <p>Terminology describing pancreatic head resection lacks standardization, with a growing preference for a linguistically imprecise term. These inconsistencies may affect medical education, literature indexing, and the integration of terminology into data-driven systems such as electronic medical records. Standardizing language based on etymological accuracy and clinical clarity should be prioritized in surgical training, academic publishing, and health information management.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Pancreatoduodenectomy or Pancreaticoduodenectomy? A Century of Evolving Terminology in Pancreatic Surgery

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月16日

查看全文
  • Victor Perim,
  • Annabelle Fonseca,
  • Martin Heslin,
  • Sushanth Reddy,
  • Panayotis Vardas,
  • J. Bart Rose

摘要

Objective

The objective was to evaluate historical and contemporary trends in the terminology used to describe pancreatic head resection procedures in the English-language medical literature and to assess whether nomenclature use has changed over time and whether linguistic accuracy aligns with term prevalence.

Methods

A bibliometric analysis was conducted using a comprehensive title and abstract-based search across PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, encompassing all available publications through December 2023. Articles were included if their titles or abstracts contained any of the following terms: “pancreatoduodenectomy,” “pancreaticoduodenectomy,” “duodenopancreatectomy,” “Whipple procedure,” “pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy,” or “pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy.” There were no restrictions on article type, publication year, or original language. Duplicate entries were removed, and exact match algorithms were used to identify and quantify terminology usage across titles and abstracts. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze frequency trends by year.

Results

Of 28,933 identified records, 17,037 unique publications were included for analysis. From 1943 to the early 2000’s, term usage was relatively balanced. However, from 2004 to 2023, “pancreaticoduodenectomy” accounted for 65.7% of all titles, and “pancreatoduodenectomy” appeared in 27.9%. The use of “duodenopancreatectomy” and other variants declined markedly. Despite grammatical and etymological evidence favoring “pancreatoduodenectomy,” the less accurate “pancreaticoduodenectomy” has become increasingly dominant.

Conclusion

Terminology describing pancreatic head resection lacks standardization, with a growing preference for a linguistically imprecise term. These inconsistencies may affect medical education, literature indexing, and the integration of terminology into data-driven systems such as electronic medical records. Standardizing language based on etymological accuracy and clinical clarity should be prioritized in surgical training, academic publishing, and health information management.