ArticleThe British journal of surgery2022
Benchmarking of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by using two different methods.
Article in The British journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 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
- Postoperative pancreatic fistula: a bibliometric analysis of research trends and a meta-analysis on the association with intra pancreatic fat deposition.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and pancreatic surgery in the 21st century: triumphs, turning points, and unresolved challenges.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
- Global research trends and frontier evolution in robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy: a bibliometric and visualization analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robotics vs. laparoscopy in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy in the IGOMIPS registry: when glitter does not equal superiority.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic crush and clip technique for pancreatic transection in robotic distal pancreatectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Effect of Volume on Postoperative Outcomes After Left Pancreatectomy: A Multicenter Prospective Snapshot Study (SPANDISPAN Project).Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- International validation of the distal pancreatectomy fistula risk score: evaluation in minimally invasive and open surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Robotic distal pancreatectomy using the Warshaw technique demonstrated superior short-term prognosis compared to the laparoscopic approach: propensity-matched cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Risk factors and predictive model development for high blood loss in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a retrospective cohort study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- Abdominal drainage after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: out of sight, out of mind?Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Defining what is left in a left-sided pancreatectomy.The British journal of surgery · 2024Article
- Global benchmarks in primary robotic bariatric surgery redefine quality standards for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy.The British journal of surgery · 2024Article
- Practical implications of tumor proximity to landmark vessels in minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy from multi-port to reduced-port surgery approach.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
- Benchmarking outcomes for distal pancreatectomy: critical evaluation of four multicenter studies.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Identifying the preoperative factors predicting the surgical difficulty of robotic distal pancreatectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Response to Letter to the Editor on Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy, a Novel Standard of Care? Benchmark Values for Surgical Outcomes From 16 International Expert Centers.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023Article
- Editorial: Interdisciplinary surgical strategies for complex tumor defects in modern oncology.Frontiers in oncology · 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
37 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBenchmarking is an important tool for quality comparison and improvement. However, no benchmark values are available for minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, either laparoscopically or robotically assisted. The aim of this study was to establish benchmarks for these techniques using two different methods.
methodsData from patients undergoing laparoscopically or robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy were extracted from a multicentre database (2006-2019). Benchmarks for 10 outcomes were calculated using the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) and best-patient-in-best-centre methods.
resultsOverall, 951 laparoscopically assisted (77.3 per cent) and 279 robotically assisted (22.7 per cent) procedures were included. Using the ABC method, the benchmarks for laparoscopically assisted and robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy respectively were: 150 and 207 min for duration of operation, 55 and 100 ml for blood loss, 3.5 and 1.7 per cent for conversion, 0 and 1.7 per cent for failure to preserve the spleen, 27.3 and 34.0 per cent for overall morbidity, 5.1 and 3.3 per cent for major morbidity, 3.6 and 7.1 per cent for pancreatic fistula grade B/C, 5 and 6 days for duration of hospital stay, 2.9 and 5.4 per cent for readmissions, and 0 and 0 per cent for 90-day mortality. Best-patient-in-best-centre methodology revealed milder benchmark cut-offs for laparoscopically and robotically assisted procedures, with operating times of 254 and 262.5 min, blood loss of 150 and 195 ml, conversion rates of 5.8 and 8.2 per cent, rates of failure to salvage spleen of 29.9 and 27.3 per cent, overall morbidity rates of 62.7 and 55.7 per cent, major morbidity rates of 20.4 and 14 per cent, POPF B/C rates of 23.8 and 24.2 per cent, duration of hospital stay of 8 and 8 days, readmission rates of 20 and 15.1 per cent, and 90-day mortality rates of 0 and 0 per cent respectively.
conclusionTwo benchmark methods for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy produced different values, and should be interpreted and applied differently.
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.