ArticleSurgical endoscopy2015
Laparoscopic robot-assisted versus open total pancreatectomy: a case-matched study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus open total pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Prophylactic total pancreatectomy in individuals at high risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PROPAN): systematic review and shared decision-making programme using decision tables.United European gastroenterology journal · 2020Pooled it
- Comparison of 3 Minimally Invasive Methods Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques · 2020Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with benign and malignant periampullary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2016Pooled it
- External Validation of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery Complexity Grading System for Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Insights From the IGOMIPS Registry.Annals of surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic left gastric vein reimplantation to prevent gastric venous congestion in total pancreatectomy.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic spleen-preserving total pancreatectomy for the treatment of low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors: Two case reports and review of literature.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Role of minimally invasive surgery in the management of localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Review
- Case Report: Robotic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary rhabdomyosarcoma in a 3-year-old patient.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Robotic versus open total pancreatectomy: a retrospective cohort study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Article
- Feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted total pancreatectomy: a pilot western series.Updates in surgery · 2021Article
- Robotic-assisted versus open total pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2020Article
- Article
- Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: the results of a case-matched comparison.Journal of robotic surgery · 2020Article
- Robotic total pancreatectomy with splenectomy: technique and outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Technical Considerations.The Indian journal of surgery · 2018Article
- Review
- Robotic-Assisted Pancreatic Resections.World journal of surgery · 2016Article
- Total pancreatectomy: Short- and long-term outcomes at a high-volume pancreas center.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe enhanced dexterity offered by robotic assistance could be excessive for distal pancreatectomy but not enough to improve the outcome of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Total pancreatectomy retains the challenges of uncinate process dissection and digestive reconstruction, but avoids the risk of pancreatic fistula, and could be a suitable operation to highlight the advantages of robotic assistance in pancreatic resections.
methodsEleven laparoscopic robot-assisted total pancreatectomies (LRATP) were compared to 11 case-matched open total pancreatectomies. All operations were performed by one surgeon during the same period of time. Robotic assistance was employed in half of the patients, based on robot availability at the time of surgery. Variables examined included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusions, operative time, tumor type, tumor size, number of examined lymph nodes, margin status, post-operative complications, 90-day or in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate.
resultsNo LRATP was converted to conventional laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy or open surgery despite two patients (18.1 %) required vein resection and reconstruction. LRATP was associated with longer mean operative time (600 vs. 469 min; p = 0.014) but decreased mean blood loss (220 vs. 705; p = 0.004) than open surgery. Post-operative complications occurred in similar percentages after LRATP and open surgery. Complications occurring in most patients (5/7) after LRATP were of mild severity (Clavien-Dindo grade I and II). One patient required repeat laparoscopic surgery after LRATP, to drain a fluid collection not amenable to percutaneous catheter drainage. One further patient from the open group required repeat surgery because of bleeding. No patient had margin positive resection, and the mean number of examined lymph nodes was 45 after LRATP and 36 after open surgery.
conclusionsLRATP is feasible in selected patients, but further experience is needed to draw final conclusions.
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.