SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2025
Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is used more commonly, but this surge is mostly based on observational data. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term outcomes between MIPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using data collected from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases for RCTs comparing MIPD and OPD published before December 10, 2024. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
resultsA total of eight studies were included, including two studies evaluating robotic PD (RPD) and six studies evaluating laparoscopic PD (LPD). Although MIPD was associated with a longer operative time (MD, 49.90 min; 95% CI, 27.53, 72.27, P < 0.0001), patients may benefit from reduced blood loss (MD, - 96.55 mL; 95% CI, - 145.25, - 47.86, P = 0.0001), and shorter length of stay (MD, - 1.01 days; 95% CI, - 1.74, - 0.27, P = 0.007). There were no significant differences observed in readmission (RR, 1.04), 90-day mortality (RR, 1.13), overall morbidity (RR, 0.99), major complications (RR, 1.04), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR, 0.98), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (RR, 0.98), delayed gastric emptying (RR, 0.93), number of harvested lymph nodes (MD, 0.39), and R0 resection (RR, 1.00) between the groups. In addition, the subgroup results showed that both RPD (MD, -90.54 mL; 95% CI, - 125.39, - 55.69, P < 0.00001) and LPD (MD, - 100.64 mL; 95% CI, - 163.23, - 38.06, P = 0.002) reduced the intraoperative blood loss.
conclusionsAlthough some short-term outcomes were similar between MIPD and OPD, MIPD exhibited reduced intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stay. In the future, MIPD may become a safe and effective alternative to OPD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40931101What 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.