ReviewAnnals of surgical oncology2025
The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection for Ductal Adenocarcinoma, Updates, Trends, and Future Considerations.
Review in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- Challenges and catalysators in building a robotic HPB program: the experience of a tertiary cancer center.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Rising Pancreatic Cancer Incidence in Young Japanese Women and Increasing Distal Pancreatectomy in Older Adults: A Nationwide Claims-Based Analysis From 2016 to 2023.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- ASO Author Reflections: The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection-Past, Present, and Future.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Surgical and Oncological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Left Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Cancer: Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Approach.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a formidable malignancy, with historically high morbidity and mortality following surgical resection. Over the past two decades, minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR)-encompassing both laparoscopic and robotic approaches-has emerged as a promising alternative to conventional open techniques, offering potential advantages in perioperative recovery while aiming to maintain oncologic standards.
objectiveThis review aims to synthesize the evidence guiding the adoption of MIPR for PDAC and to highlight technical innovations, training considerations, and future directions in this evolving field.
methodsA focused appraisal of key retrospective analyses, prospective randomized trials, and meta-analyses was conducted. Emphasis was placed on oncologic outcomes, perioperative morbidity, learning curve dynamics, and patient selection criteria.
resultsOverall, the studies reviewed suggest that MIPR can achieve equivalent oncologic outcomes-specifically in margin status and lymph node yield-relative to open resection. Advantages include reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and faster functional recovery, most consistently demonstrated for distal pancreatectomy. However, the technical complexity of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy necessitates structured training and high-volume centers to mitigate safety concerns. Increasing use of neoadjuvant therapy also intersects with MIPR, necessitating careful patient selection and multidisciplinary coordination.
conclusionsMinimally invasive pancreatic resection has become a valid option for patients with PDAC, particularly for distal lesions, and holds promise for broader application pending further refinements. Rigorous training programs, thoughtful patient selection, and ongoing trials will be crucial to optimizing outcomes and solidifying MIPR as a mainstay in pancreatic cancer management.
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.