ArticleAnnals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery2020
A single institution experience with robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies.
Article in Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups and meta-regression analyses.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Minimally Invasive Versus Open Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy: A Meta-Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Perioperative Outcomes in Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Network Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.Cancers · 2025Article
- Robotic Versus Hand-Assisted Distal Pancreatectomy: A Comparative Single Center Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Postoperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: Laparoscopic versus robotic approach-A cohort study.Health science reports · 2022Article
- Propensity-Score Matched Analyses Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomies: A Single-Center Experience.World journal of surgery · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS/
aimsThis study aims to describe our experience with minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomies, with emphasis on the comparison between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).
methodsRetrospective review of 102 consecutive RDP and LDP from 2006 to 2019 was performed.
resultsThere were 27 and 75 patients who underwent RDP and LDP, respectively. There were 12 (11.8%) open conversions and 16 (15.7%) patients had major (＞grade 2) morbidities. Patients who underwent RDP had significantly higher rates of splenic preservation (44.4% vs. 13.3%, p=0.002), higher rates of splenic-vessel preservation (40.7% vs. 9.3%, p=0.001), higher median difficulty score (5 vs. 3, p=0.002) but longer operation time (385 vs. 245 minutes, p＜0.001). The rate of open conversion tended to be lower with RDP (3.7% vs. 14.7%, p=0.175).
conclusionsIn our institution practice, both RDP and LDP were safe and effective. The use of RDP appeared to be complementary to LDP, allowing us to perform more difficult procedures with comparable postoperative outcomes.
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.