Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38373834›Full record

Trial reportYonsei medical journal2024

The Revo-i Robotic Surgical System in Advanced Pancreatic Surgery: A Second Non-Randomized Clinical Trial and Comparative Analysis to the da Vinci™ System.

Ji Su Kim, Munseok Choi, Hyeo Seong Hwang, Woo Jung Lee, Chang Moo Kang

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Yonsei medical journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Advances in the application of transoral robotic surgery].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025
    Review
  5. ArtiSentialAnnals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Ji Su KimDivision of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The Catholic University of Korea Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, Incheon, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9501-9665
Munseok ChoiDepartment of Surgery, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yongin, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9844-4747
Hyeo Seong HwangDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0339-1524
Woo Jung LeeDivision of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3116-0472
Chang Moo KangDivision of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. cmkang@yuhs.ac.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5382-4658

Funding

Meerecompany 1-2019-0030
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNumerous robot-assisted pancreatic surgery are being performed worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the Revo-i robot system (Meerecompany, Seoul, Republic of Korea) for advanced pancreatic surgery, and also compare this new system with the existing da Vinci™ robot system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) in the context of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). MATERIALS AND

methodsThis study was a one-armed prospective clinical trial that assessed the Revo-i robot system for advanced pancreatic surgery. Ten patients aged 30 to 73 years were enrolled between December 2019 and August 2020. Postoperative outcomes were retrospectively compared with those of the da Vinci™ surgical system. From March 2017 to August 2020, a total of 47 patients who underwent RPD were analyzed retrospectively.

resultsIn the prospective clinical trial, pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed in nine patients and one patient underwent central pancreatectomy. Among the 10 study participants, the incidence of major complications was 0% in hospital stay. There were eight postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) biochemical leaks (80%). In the retrospective analysis that compared the Revo-i and da Vinci™ robotic systems, 10 patients underwent Revo-i RPD and 37 patients underwent da Vinci™ RPD, with no significant differences in complication or POPF incidence rates between the two groups (

conclusionIn this single-arm prospective study with short-term follow-up at a single institution, the Revo-i robotic surgical system was safe and effective for advanced pancreatic surgery. Revo-i RPD is comparable to the da Vinci™ RPD and is expected to have wide clinical application.

Indexed as

Pancreatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansPancreasPancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiespancreatectomypancreaticoduodenectomyRobotics

Identifiers

PMID38373834
PMCPMC10896669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.