Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35280811›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: An Up-To-Date System Review and Meta-Analysis.

Lanwei Ouyang, Jia Zhang, Qingbo Feng, Zhiguang Zhang, Hexing Ma, Guodong Zhang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Review of Contemporary Evidence on Surgical Outcomes and Learning Curve.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lanwei OuyangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The 3rd Affiliated Hospital Of Chengdu Medical College, Pidu District People's Hospital, Chengdu, China.
Jia ZhangDepartment of Breast Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Qingbo FengDepartment of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Zhiguang ZhangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The 3rd Affiliated Hospital Of Chengdu Medical College, Pidu District People's Hospital, Chengdu, China.
Hexing MaDepartment of General Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Guodong ZhangDepartment of General Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Although minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has gained worldwide interest, there are limited comparative studies between two minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy techniques. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), especially the difference in the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes. Methods: PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before July 2021. Data on operative times, blood loss, overall morbidity, major complications, vascular resection, blood transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), conversion rate, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), and lymph node dissection were subjected to meta-analysis. Results: Overall, the final analysis included 9 retrospective studies comprising 3,732 patients; 1,149 (30.79%) underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), and 2,583 (69.21%) underwent LPD. The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in operative times, overall morbidity, major complications, blood transfusion, POPF, DGE, reoperation, and LOS. Alternatively, compared with LPD, RPD was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.002), less conversion rate (p < 0.00001), less vascular resection (p = 0.0006), and more retrieved lymph nodes (p = 0.01). Conclusion: RPD is at least equivalent to LPD with respect to the incidence of complication, incidence and severity of DGE, and reoperation and length of hospital stay. Compared with LPD, RPD seems to be associated with less blood loss, lower conversion rate, less vascular resection, and more retrieved lymph nodes. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD2021274057.

Indexed as

Da Vincilaparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomymeta-analysisminimally invasive surgeryrobotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Identifiers

PMID35280811
PMCPMC8914533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.