Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39880981›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2025

Perioperative outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Cecilio Armengol-García, Valeria Blandin-Alvarez, Eshita Sharma, Luis Eduardo Salinas-Ruiz, Marla L González-Méndez, Mateus Monteiro Dos Santos, Iqbal Farhan-Sayudo, Ana Carolina Ventura de Santana de Jesus, Aisha Rizwan-Ahmed, Eduardo Flores-Villalba

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Review of Contemporary Evidence on Surgical Outcomes and Learning Curve.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

10 authors.

Cecilio Armengol-GarcíaTecnológico de Monterrey, Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México. A00826205@tec.mx.ORCID 0009-0001-1822-9028
Valeria Blandin-AlvarezTecnológico de Monterrey, Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México.
Eshita SharmaDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, USA.
Luis Eduardo Salinas-RuizTecnológico de Monterrey, Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México.
Marla L González-MéndezUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México.
Mateus Monteiro Dos SantosUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brasil.
Iqbal Farhan-SayudoDepartment of Medicine, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Indonesia.
Ana Carolina Ventura de Santana de JesusBahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil.
Aisha Rizwan-AhmedJinnah Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan.
Eduardo Flores-VillalbaTecnológico de Monterrey, Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has gained widespread acceptance among hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons due to its demonstrated advantages in perioperative outcomes compared to the conventional open approach. This meta-analysis, along with trial sequential analysis, aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy based on the current available evidence.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to July 2024. We assessed intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, including open conversion rates, readmission, reoperation, and mortality. Additional factors, such as blood loss and the number of lymph nodes resected, were also evaluated. Quality assessment was performed using Cochrane's risk of bias tools. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on propensity score matching status, and trial sequential analysis was applied to statistically significant results on first analysis.

resultsWe meta-analyzed seventeen studies, with a total of 5,483 patients. The meta-analysis reported lower rates of open conversion (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.26-0.61; p = < 0.001) and a higher number of lymph nodes resected (MD 3.5; 95% CI 1.45-5.55; p = 0.0008) in the RPD group. These results remained consistent after subgroup analysis. Trial sequential analysis confirmed true positive results, indicating that further studies are unnecessary to detect a significant difference. However, other perioperative outcomes did not show statistical significance and failed to reach the required information size for definitive conclusions.

conclusionThis meta-analysis of non-randomized cohorts found lower rates of open conversion and a higher number of lymph nodes resected in patients undergoing robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. However, the initial analysis did not reveal statistically significant differences in transfusion rates, multivisceral and vascular resections, hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, mortality, or readmission rates. Future studies should focus on randomized designs, target more specific populations, and include long-term outcomes for a more comprehensive analysis.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative ComplicationsRobotic Surgical ProceduresBlood Loss, SurgicalConversion to Open SurgeryHumansLymph Node ExcisionReoperationTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomyPancreatoduodenectomyRobotic pancreatoduodenectomyWhipple

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.