ArticleThe Indian journal of surgery2018
Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Single-Surgeon Initial Experience.
Article in The Indian journal of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing the operative, oncological, post-operative outcomes and complications of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of pancreatic and periampullary cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis with subgroup analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery has gained increasing acceptance over the last few years, which has expanded to pancreaticoduodenectomy. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy has been determined to be a feasible, safe, and effective procedure in an experienced surgeon's hands, but the adaptations to the clumsy instruments are needed. The improved dexterity of the Da Vinci robotic system provides a good opportunity to perform this challenging procedure in the minimally invasive context. The aim of this study was to share our preliminary experience of totally robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. From April 2015 to August 2015, four patients were selected to undergo totally robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in the Department of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China. The demographic characteristics, perioperative details, and pathological results were retrospectively reviewed. One female and two male patients underwent totally robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, while another male patient underwent robotic total pancreatectomy due to the severe atrophy of pancreatic body and tail. The mean age of the four patients was 56.8 years. The average operation time and intraoperative blood loss were 563 min and 228 mL, respectively. No one needed blood transfusion, conversion to open pancreaticoduodenectomy, or postoperative analgesia. The postoperative courses of these patients were uneventful. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 10 days. No one required to be readmitted, and there was no death within 30 days following the surgery. Final pathologic examinations revealed one malignant pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and three benign lesions. Based on this initial study, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is safe and feasible, with acceptable oncological outcomes for highly selected patients in experienced surgeons' hands. However, concerns such as long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness analysis, and learning curve analysis should be fully demonstrated before the popularization of this challenging procedure.
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.