ArticleSurgical endoscopy2013
200 consecutive laparoscopic pancreatic resections performed with a robotically controlled laparoscope holder.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic versus robotic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Pooled it
- Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery.BMC gastroenterology · 2017Pooled it
- Development of Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery: an Evidence-Based Systematic Review of Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Approaches.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2016Pooled it
- Article
- Role of Artificial Intelligence in Nanomedicine and Organ-specific Therapy: An Updated Review.Current drug targets · 2025Review
- The experience of the minimally invasive (MI) fellowship-trained (FT) hepatic-pancreatic and biliary (HPB) surgeon: could the outcome of MI pancreatoduodenectomy for peri-ampullary tumors be better than open?Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- A learning robot for cognitive camera control in minimally invasive surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Artificial Intelligence Surgery: How Do We Get to Autonomous Actions in Surgery?Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Artificial intelligence in perioperative management of major gastrointestinal surgeries.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Is robotic pancreatic surgery finally ready for prime-time?Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2020Article
- Robotic-Assisted Pancreatic Resections.World journal of surgery · 2016Article
- Computer-assisted abdominal surgery: new technologies.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBecause of the potential benefit of robotics in pancreatic surgery, we review our experience at two minimally invasive pancreatic surgery centers that utilize a robotically controlled laparoscope holder to see if smaller robots that enable the operating surgeon to maintain contact with the patient may have a role in the treatment of pancreatic disease.
methodsFrom March 1994 to June 2011, a total of 200 laparoscopic pancreatic procedures utilizing a robotically controlled laparoscope holder were performed.
resultsA total of 72 duodenopancreatectomies, 67 distal pancreatectomies, 23 enucleations, 20 pancreatic cyst drainage procedures, 5 necrosectomies, 5 atypical pancreatic resections, 4 total pancreatectomies, and 4 central pancreatectomies were performed. Fourteen patients required conversion to an open approach and eight a hand-assisted one. A total of 24 patients suffered a major complication. Sixteen patients developed a pancreatic leak and 19 patients required reoperation. Major complications occurred in 14 patients and pancreatic leaks occurred in 13 patients. Ten patients required conversion to a lap-assisted or open approach and six patients required reoperation.
conclusionsCurrently, a robotically assisted approach using a camera holder seems the only way to incorporate some of the benefits of robotics in pancreatic surgery while maintaining haptics and contact with the patient.
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.