SynthesisScientific reports2017
A systemic review and an updated meta-analysis: minimally invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Minimally Invasive vs. Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Distal Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Is total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy superior to open procedure? A meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019Pooled it
- Pathologically confirmed complete remission after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced intrapancreatic cholangiocarcinoma following robot-assisted excision of choledochal cyst: A case report.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomies.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the surgical and oncological outcomes of hepatic artery variations in minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: insights from 2023 data at a high-volume pancreatic center.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Comparison of short-term outcomes of open and laparoscopic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary carcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive approaches increase postoperative complications in obese patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy during the initial development period: a propensity score matching study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Robotic versus open pancreatic surgery: a propensity score-matched cost-effectiveness analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Article
- Performance with robotic surgery versus 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy during pancreatic and biliary anastomoses in a biotissue model: pooled analysis of two randomized trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- A Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism Rate After Pancreatoduodenectomy Based on Operative Approach.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022Article
- Review of minimally invasive pancreas surgery and opinion on its incorporation into low volume and resource poor centres.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Review
- Adverse Impact of Intraoperative Conversion on the Postoperative Course Following Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy.Yonsei medical journal · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic hybrid pancreaticoduodenectomy: Initial single center experience.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2021Article
- Short-term outcomes after minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients: a propensity score-matched analysis.BMC surgery · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary tumors: lessons learned from 500 consecutive patients in a single center.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Propensity score-matching analysis comparing laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients.Scientific reports · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The feasible of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains controversial when compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to summarise the available evidence to compare MIPD vs OPD. We systemically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies published through February 2016. The primary endpoint was postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF, grade B/C). A total of 27 studies involving 14,231 patients (2,377 MIPD and 11,854 OPD) were included. MIPD was associated with longer operative times (P < 0.01) and increased mortality (P < 0.01), but decreased estimated blood loss (P < 0.01), decreased delayed gastric emptying (P < 0.01), increased R0 resection rate (P < 0.01), decreased wound infection (P = 0.03) and shorter hospital stays (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in BMI (P = 0.43), tumor size (P = 0.17), lymph nodes harvest (P = 0.57), POPF (P = 0.84), reoperation (P = 0.25) and 5-year survival rates (P = 0.82) for MIPD compared with OPD. Although there was an increased operative cost (P < 0.01) for MIPD compared with OPD, the postoperative cost was less (P < 0.01) with the similar total costs (P = 0.28). MIPD can be a reasonable alternative to OPD with the potential advantage of being minimally invasive. However, MIPD should be performed in high-volume centers and more randomized-controlled trials are needed to evaluate the appropriate indications of MIPD.
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.