Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39048737›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024

Reduced-port robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy with optimized surgical field deployment: early results of single-site plus-two ports method.

Riki Ninomiya, Masahiko Komagome, Satoru Abe, Shohei Maruta, Shinichi Matsudaira, Noriki Okada, Kazuhiro Mori, Rihito Nagata, Takehiro Chiyoda, Akifumi Kimura and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Single-portAnnals of surgical treatment and research · 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

15 authors.

Riki NinomiyaDepartment of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Pediatric Surgery, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, 1981, Kamoda, Kawagoe, Saitama, 350-8550, Japan. rickynino9222@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0787-5646
Masahiko KomagomeDepartment of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Pediatric Surgery, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, 1981, Kamoda, Kawagoe, Saitama, 350-8550, Japan.
Satoru AbeHepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Division and Artificial Organ and Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Shohei MarutaDepartment of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Pediatric Surgery, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, 1981, Kamoda, Kawagoe, Saitama, 350-8550, Japan.
Shinichi MatsudairaDepartment of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Pediatric Surgery, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, 1981, Kamoda, Kawagoe, Saitama, 350-8550, Japan.
Noriki OkadaDepartment of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Pediatric Surgery, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, 1981, Kamoda, Kawagoe, Saitama, 350-8550, Japan.
Kazuhiro MoriDepartment of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Pediatric Surgery, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, 1981, Kamoda, Kawagoe, Saitama, 350-8550, Japan.
Rihito NagataDepartment of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Pediatric Surgery, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, 1981, Kamoda, Kawagoe, Saitama, 350-8550, Japan.
Takehiro ChiyodaHepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Division and Artificial Organ and Transplantation Division, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Akifumi KimuraDepartment of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Pediatric Surgery, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, 1981, Kamoda, Kawagoe, Saitama, 350-8550, Japan.
Nobuyuki TakemuraDepartment of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Pediatric Surgery, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, 1981, Kamoda, Kawagoe, Saitama, 350-8550, Japan.
Akira MakiDepartment of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Pediatric Surgery, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, 1981, Kamoda, Kawagoe, Saitama, 350-8550, Japan.
Yoshifumi BeckDepartment of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Pediatric Surgery, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, 1981, Kamoda, Kawagoe, Saitama, 350-8550, Japan.
Ching-Lung HsiehDa Vinci Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, No.110, Sec 1, Chien-Kuo N. Rd., Taichung, 40201, Taiwan.
Cheng-Ming PengDa Vinci Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, No.110, Sec 1, Chien-Kuo N. Rd., Taichung, 40201, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe adoption of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is increasing globally. Meanwhile, reduced-port RPD (RPRPD) remains uncommon, requiring robot-specific techniques not possible with laparoscopy. We introduce a unique RPRPD technique optimizing surgical field exposure.

methodsOur RPRPD utilizes a single-site plus-two ports technique, facilitated by a single-port platform through a 5-cm incision. The configuration of robotic arms (arm1, arm2, arm3, and arm4) were strategically designed for optimal procedural efficiency, with the arms2 and arm3, alongside the assistant trocar, mounted on the single-port platform, while the arms1 and arm4 were positioned laterally across the abdomen. Drainage was established via channels created at the arm1 and arm4 insertion sites. A "gooseneck traction" was principally employed with the robotic instrument to prop up the specimen rather than grasp, improving the surgical field's visibility and access. Clinical outcomes of patients who underwent RPRPD performed between August 2020 and September 2023 by a single surgeon across two centers in Taiwan and Japan were reviewed.

resultsFifty patients underwent RPRPD using the single-site plus-two ports technique. The gooseneck traction technique enabled goodsurgical field deployment and allowed for unrestricted movement of robotic arms with no collisions with the assistant instruments. The median operative time was 351 min (250-488 min), including 271 min (219-422 min) of console time and three minutes (2-10 min) of docking time. The median estimated blood loss was 80 mL (1-872 mL). All RPRPD procedures were successfully performed without the need for conversion to open surgery. Postoperative major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) was observed in 6 (12%) patients and median postoperative hospital stay was 13 days.

conclusionsThe single-site plus-two ports RPRPD with the gooseneck traction proves to be a safe, feasible option, facilitating surgical field visibility and robotic arm maneuverability.

Indexed as

Operative TimePancreaticoduodenectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPancreatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeMinimally invasive pancreatectomyReduced-port robotic surgeryRobotic pancreaticoduodenectomyRobotic surgical proceduresSingle-port pancreatoduodenectomy

Identifiers

PMID39048737
PMCPMC11362361

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.