Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38415878›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of surgery2024

Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis.

Nine de Graaf, Maurice J W Zwart, Jony van Hilst, Bram van den Broek, Bert A Bonsing, Olivier R Busch, Peter-Paul L O Coene, Freek Daams, Susan van Dieren, Casper H J van Eijck and 12 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. How to Reduce Delayed Gastric Emptying After Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024
    Article
  19. The state of roboticGland surgery · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.

Nine de GraafDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7058-4131
Maurice J W ZwartDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jony van HilstDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bram van den BroekDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Bert A BonsingDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Olivier R BuschDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9605-6831
Peter-Paul L O CoeneDepartment of Surgery, Maasstad Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Freek DaamsDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Susan van DierenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Casper H J van EijckDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sebastiaan FestenDepartment of Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ignace H J T de HinghDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Daan J LipsDepartment of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Misha D P LuyerDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9483-1520
J Sven D MieogDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3649-8504
Hjalmar C van SantvoortDepartment of Surgery, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
George P van der SchellingDepartment of Surgery, Amphia Ziekenhuis, Breda, The Netherlands.
Martijn W J StommelDeptartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4257-5254
Roeland F de WildeDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
I Quintus MolenaarDepartment of Surgery, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Bas Groot KoerkampDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1917-6973
Marc G BesselinkDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2650-9350
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLLeiden University · NLOLVG · NLUtrecht University · NLAmphia Ziekenhuis · NLFondazione Poliambulanza Istituto Ospedaliero · ITMaasstad Ziekenhuis · NLMedisch Spectrum Twente · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands.

methodsThis was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias.

resultsOverall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P < 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P < 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032).

conclusionThis study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Indexed as

PancreaticoduodenectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresBlood Loss, SurgicalHumansPancreasPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID38415878
PMCPMC10898866
OpenAlexW4392204268

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.