SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
A comprehensive analysis of robotic assisted vs. laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy using propensity score matching.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of the perioperative outcomes of robotic vs. open distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis of propensity-score-matched studies.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Standard operating procedures and learning curve analysis for surgical assistants in robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using the propensity-matched methodology, this meta-analysis and comprehensive review aimed to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in terms of perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes. Within the scope of this investigation, complete and total adherence to the PRISMA guidelines for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was established. The search we conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE was automated to find relevant papers that matched the tendency up to July 1, 2024. The length of time spent while operating, the rate of conversion, and the collection of lymph nodes were the primary factors that were considered. Other metrics that were taken into consideration were the approximate amount of blood loss, the length of time spent in the hospital, the need for transfusions, and the occurrence of major adverse events. In the end, there were 8 studies that involved 1649 patients. Of those patients, 758 had robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy, whereas 891 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. In comparison to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, the robotic assisted technique did result in higher anticipated blood loss and conversion rates; however, it also required longer durations of operation due to its lengthier duration. In terms of lymph node retrieval, the duration of hospital stay, the need for blood transfusions, and the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, there were no distinctions that could be considered statistically significant between the two techniques. A realistic and risk-free surgical alternative is a distal pancreatectomy that is performed with the aid of robotic technology. When compared to laparoscopic surgery, the outcomes of robot-assisted surgery were superior in terms of conversion rates to laparotomy and less anticipated intraoperative blood loss. However, the operation took longer to complete than laparoscopic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40014153What 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.