Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40307469›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025

Outcomes evaluation of robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity score matching and learning curve analysis.

Lixin Chen, Shuai Yuan, Qiang Xu, Ming Cui, Pengyu Li, Wenjing Liu, Chen Lin, Weijie Chen, Haomin Chen, Ya Hu and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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. Observational
  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

11 authors.

Lixin ChenDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), No. 1, Shuai Fu Yuan, Beijing, China.
Shuai YuanDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), No. 1, Shuai Fu Yuan, Beijing, China.
Qiang XuDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), No. 1, Shuai Fu Yuan, Beijing, China.
Ming CuiDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), No. 1, Shuai Fu Yuan, Beijing, China.
Pengyu LiDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), No. 1, Shuai Fu Yuan, Beijing, China.
Wenjing LiuDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), No. 1, Shuai Fu Yuan, Beijing, China.
Chen LinDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), No. 1, Shuai Fu Yuan, Beijing, China.
Weijie ChenDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), No. 1, Shuai Fu Yuan, Beijing, China.
Haomin ChenDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), No. 1, Shuai Fu Yuan, Beijing, China.
Ya HuDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), No. 1, Shuai Fu Yuan, Beijing, China.
Menghua DaiDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), No. 1, Shuai Fu Yuan, Beijing, China. daimh@pumch.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7273-6282

Funding

Key Technologies Research and Development Program No.2020YFC2002702National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding 2022-PUMCH-D-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLimited research has been conducted on the short-term outcomes comparing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), particularly in the post-learning curve stage. This study aims to investigate surgical efficacy and provide clinical practices for selecting suitable techniques between LPD and RPD.

methodsA retrospective study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent RPD and LPD between April 2016 and December 2023. Baseline characteristics, pathological information, and perioperative data were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to ensure the comparability of important factors between the groups.

resultsA total of 277 patients were enrolled in the study, of which 145 underwent RPD. Following PSM, 116 patients were included in each group and baseline characteristics were well matched. The RPD group demonstrated a lower conversion rate to laparotomy (5.2% vs. 18.1%, p = 0.002), reduced blood loss (350 vs. 500 ml, p = 0.031), and a higher rate of R0 resection (91.4% vs. 80.7%, p < 0.05) compared to the laparoscopic group. The incidence of B2-Grade postoperative pancreatic fistula (B2-POPF) was also lower in the RPD group compared to the LPD group (4.3% vs. 11.2%, p = 0.037). Among patients in the post-learning curve stage, perioperative outcomes were similar between the two groups.

conclusionRPD offered several advantages over LPD, including lower rates of conversion to open and blood loss, higher rates of R0 resection, and improved POPF outcomes. Other perioperative outcomes were comparable between the two groups. Both techniques appeared feasible and safe in experienced surgeons, though RPD was preferred in complex cases.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPancreatic NeoplasmsPancreaticoduodenectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedConversion to Open SurgeryFemaleHumansLearning CurveMaleMiddle AgedPancreatic FistulaPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomyLearning curvePropensity score matchingRobotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

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.