ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Reduced pancreatic fistula rates and comprehensive cost analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Does robotic pancreatoduodenectomy reduce the incidence of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic Remnant Total Pancreatectomy After Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (with video).Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Single-institution experience of 500 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies: case-matched outcomes of the da Vinci Xi robotic versus open procedures.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Early clinical impact of mesenteric Kocherization in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- The Hidden Cost of Precision: Financial, Training, and Environmental Trade-Offs in Robotic HPB Surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has emerged as a promising surgical approach for the treatment of periampullary neoplasms, offering the potential benefits of minimally invasive surgery. However, the impact of RPD on clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-PF) rates and overall costs compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) remains unclear, limiting its widespread adoption.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted at a high-volume Japanese referral center from 2017 to 2023. A total of 193 patients diagnosed with periampullary neoplasms underwent either RPD (n = 81) or OPD (n = 112). To account for potential selection bias, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance patient demographics and clinical characteristics, resulting in two well-matched groups of 60 patients each. Perioperative outcomes, CR-PF rates, and a comprehensive cost analysis were evaluated.
resultsRPD resulted in a significantly lower rate of CR-PF (10%) compared to OPD (33.3%) (p = 0.003). Additionally, patients who underwent RPD experienced shorter hospital stays (15 days) compared to those in the OPD group (22.5 days) (p < 0.001). Despite longer operative times for RPD (633 vs. 395 min; p < 0.001), total hospital costs were comparable between the two groups. The higher operative costs associated with RPD were offset by reduced postoperative complications and shorter hospitalization.
conclusionsRPD offers significant clinical advantages, including lower CR-PF rates and reduced hospital stays, without increasing overall hospital costs compared to OPD. These findings support the feasibility and potential benefits of adopting RPD for the management of periampullary neoplasms in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.