ArticleAnnals of surgery2025
Robot-assisted and Laparoscopic Extended Left Pancreatectomy: A Pan-European Multicenter Propensity-score Matched Analysis.
Article in Annals of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The era of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: is the robot ready to replace laparoscopy for extended left pancreatectomy?Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
- Association Between External Training and Self-Reported Competence Improvement Among County Hospital Healthcare Providers: A Cross-Sectional Study from China.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effectiveness comparison of pembrolizumab versus other immune checkpoint inhibitors in neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- What factors are associated with robotic distal pancreatectomy conversion?Gland surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare postoperative outcomes after extended robot-assisted left pancreatectomy (e-RLP) and extended laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (e-LLP). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The implementation of RLP is increasing worldwide with expanding indications, resulting in more extended resections. However, the use of e-RLP has not been investigated before.
methodsInternational study including consecutive patients after e-RLP and e-LLP for all indications in 19 European countries (2012-2022). Extended resection was defined according to the ISGPS definition. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed in a 1:1 ratio with a caliper width of 0.1. Primary endpoint was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications).
resultsOverall, 514 patients were included from 72 centers (152 e-RLPs; 362 e-LLPs). Before PSM, e-RLP patients had more tail tumors (69.4% vs 50.0%, P=0.001), vascular involvement (30.3% vs 16.3%, P<0.001) and >2 additional organ resections (28.5% vs 10.7%, P<0.001), with comparable major morbidity rates (27.0% vs 27.0%, P=0.991) and a lower conversion rate (15.1% vs 23.5%, P=0.033), compared to e-LLP. After PSM, 119 e-RLP patients were matched to 119 e-LLP patients. No significant differences were observed in major morbidity (23.5% vs 26.5%, P=0.599), blood loss (200 vs 150 mL, P=0.835), conversion rate (16.0% vs 20.0%, P=0.422), 30-day/in-hospital mortality (1.7% vs 3.4%, P=0.408), and hospital stay (median 7 vs 7 days, P=0.906). E-RLP had longer operative times (median 277 vs 228 min, P<0.001).
conclusionsThis pan-European cohort study found no significant differences in the outcomes among matched patients undergoing e-RLP and e-LLP, although e-RLP was associated with a longer operative time. The robot-assisted approach is used for more extensive resections with a comparable major morbidity rate compared to laparoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40548584What 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.