Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36106111›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022

Is robotic distal pancreatectomy better than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy after the learning curve? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chuwen Chen, Jing Hu, Hao Yang, Xuejun Zhuo, Qiuping Ren, Qingbo Feng, Miye Wang

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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Short-Term Outcomes and Cost of Robotic Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy During the Initial Phase of a Robotic Pancreatectomy Program.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

7 authors.

Chuwen ChenDepartment of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Jing HuDepartment of Health Management Centre, West China Fourth Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Hao YangEngineering Research Centre of Medical Information Technology, Ministry of Education, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Xuejun ZhuoEngineering Research Centre of Medical Information Technology, Ministry of Education, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Qiuping RenDepartment of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Qingbo FengDepartment of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Miye WangEngineering Research Centre of Medical Information Technology, Ministry of Education, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and overall effect of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) after the learning curve, especially in perioperative outcome and short-term oncological outcome. Methods: A literature search was performed by two authors independently using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify any studies comparing the results of RDP versus LDP published until 5 January 2022. Only the studies where RDP was performed in more than 35 cases were included in this study. We performed a meta-analysis of operative time, blood loss, reoperation, readmission, hospital stay, overall complications, major complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, conversion to open surgery, spleen preservation, tumor size, R0 resection, and lymph node dissection. Results: Our search identified 15 eligible studies, totaling 4,062 patients (1,413 RDP). It seems that the RDP group had a higher rate of smaller tumor size than the LDP group (MD: -0.15; 95% CI: -0.20 to -0.09; Conclusions: RDP is safe and feasible for distal pancreatectomy compared with LDP, and it can reduce the rate of conversion to open surgery and increase the rate of spleen preservation, which needs to be further confirmed by quality comparative studies with large samples. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.

Indexed as

Da Vincilaparoscopic distal pancreatectomymeta-analysisminimally invasive surgeryrobotic distal pancreatectomy

Identifiers

PMID36106111
PMCPMC9465417

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.