ArticleBMC surgery2022
Comparison of surgical outcomes among open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Perioperative outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy provides better short-term outcomes as compared to its laparoscopic counterpart: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- The optimal choice for patients underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumors: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy on the incidence of surgical-site wound infection: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- Indirect comparison of perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-center propensity score matching analysis.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of Reduced-Port Totally Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy with Conventional Totally Robotic and Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Application of a self-made liver suspension device in 3D laparoscopic non-anatomical resection of liver segment VI and VII tumors.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Cancer: Evaluation and Analysis of Surgical Efficacy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy: Increasing Complexity and Decreasing Complications with Experience: Single-Center Results from 150 Consecutive Patients.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Robot is the Missing Link for Vascular Resection During Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Surgical Perspectives of Open vs. Laparoscopic Approaches to Lateral Pancreaticojejunostomy: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- The future of robotic pancreaticoduodenal surgery: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Review
- Trends and Variations in Drain Use Following Pancreatoduodenectomy: Is Early Drain Removal Becoming More Common?World journal of surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is no general consensus on the feasibility and safety of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) and whether it increases surgical risks. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety, feasibility, and rationality of RPD by comparing perioperative data among open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD), laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), and RPD performed in our center in recent years.
methodsClinical data of patients had undergone RPD (n = 32), LPD (n = 21), and OPD (n = 86) in The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University between January 2016 and June 2020 were retrospectively collected and analyzed.
resultsRPD required more time for operation (537.2 min vs. 441.5 min, p < 0.001) than OPD did, but less time to remove abdominal drainage tube (12.5 d vs. 17.3 d, p = 0.001). The differences between the RPD group and LPD group were interesting, as the two groups had similar operation time (537.2 min vs. 592.9 min, p = 1.000) and blood loss (482.8 ml vs. 559.5 ml, p > 0.05), but the RPD group had a higher activity of daily living score on postoperative day 3 (35.8 vs. 25.7, p = 0.0017) and a lower rate of conversion to OPD (6.5% vs. 38.1%, p = 0.011). Regarding complications, such as the postoperative pancreatic fistula, abdominal hemorrhage, intra-abdominal infection, bile leakage, reoperation, and perioperative mortality, there were no significant differences among the three groups.
conclusionsNot only is RPD feasible and reliable, it also offers significant advantages in that it improves postoperative recovery of skills needed for everyday life, has a low conversion rate to open surgery, and does not increase surgical risks.
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.