ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis based on factors predictive of postoperative pancreatic fistula.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 9 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does robotic pancreatoduodenectomy reduce the incidence of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Comparing Operative Outcomes and Resection Quality in Robotic vs Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Meta-analysis of 54,000 Patients.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of multiple worldwide centers.Updates in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.Updates in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy provides better histopathological outcomes as compared to its open counterpart: a meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled 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 versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comment on: "textbook outcome following pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients: age-stratified analysis and predictive factors".Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Bridging the innovation-evidence chasm: a critical appraisal and roadmap for robotic pancreatic cancer surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a bibliometric analysis of trends, key contributors, and collaborations.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Analysis of hospital costs for robotic and open pancreatectomy incurred during the implementation of a robotic pancreatectomy program at a cancer center.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Impact of hepatic artery variation on surgical and oncological outcomes in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- International consensus guidelines on robotic pancreatic surgery in 2023.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2024Review
- Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis.The British journal of surgery · 2024Article
- Risk factors for delayed gastric emptying in pancreaticoduodenectomy.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImprovement in morbidity of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) largely depends on the reduction in the incidence of clinically relevant (CR) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).
methodsAfter internal validation of the clinical risk score (CRS) of POPF, and identification of other predictive factors for POPF, robotic (RPD), and open (OPD) PDs were stratified into risk categories and matched by propensity scores. The primary endpoint of this study was incidence of CR-POPF. Secondary endpoints were 90-day morbidity and mortality, and sample size calculation for randomized controlled trials (RCT).
resultsNo patient undergoing RPD was classified at negligible risk for POPF, and no CR-POPF occurred in 7 RPD at low risk. The matching process identified 48 and 11 pairs at intermediate and high risk for POPF, respectively. In the intermediate-risk group, RPD was associated with higher rates of CR-POPF (31.3% vs 12.5%) (p = 0.0026), with equivalent incidence of grade C POPF. In the high-risk group, CR-POPF occurred frequently, but in similar percentages, after either procedures. Starting from an unadjusted point estimate of the effect size of 1.71 (0.91-3.21), the pair-matched odds ratio for CR-POPF after RPD was 2.80 (1.01-7.78) for the intermediate-risk group, and 0.20 (0.01-4.17) for the high-risk group. Overall morbidity and mortality were equivalent in matched study groups. Sample size calculation for a non-inferiority RCT demonstrated that a total of 31,669 PDs would be required to randomize 682 patients at intermediate risk and 1852 patients at high risk.
conclusionsIn patients at intermediate risk, RPD is associated with higher rates of CR-POPF. Incidence of grade C POPF is similar in RPD and OPD, making overall morbidity and mortality also equivalent. A RCT, with risk stratification for POPF, would require an enormous number of patients. Implementation of an international registry could be the next step in the assessment of RPD.
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.