ArticleCancers2025
Perioperative Outcomes in Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Network Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundDistal pancreatectomy (DP) is a potentially curative procedure for tumors of the pancreatic body and tail. Minimally invasive DP (MIDP), including laparoscopic and robotic techniques, is increasingly being adopted. This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of robotic DP (RDP) in comparison with laparoscopic and open approaches using a network meta-analysis and meta-regression.
methodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies comparing at least two surgical approaches. Both Bayesian and frequentist network meta-analyses were performed.
resultsSixty-seven studies involving 18,113 patients met the inclusion criteria. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) analysis showed that RDP ranked first in 84.6% of measured parameters. Laparoscopic DP (LDP) demonstrated intermediate performance, whereas open DP (ODP) consistently ranked lowest. Operative time was significantly longer for RDP compared with ODP (MD = +25.93 min, 95% CI 7.68-44.18), while LDP and ODP were comparable. RDP significantly reduced 30-day mortality (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.84) and conversion rates compared with LDP (OR = 0.30, 95% CrI 0.22-0.40). Both minimally invasive approaches (RDP and LDP), compared with open surgery, were associated with reduced blood loss (-304 mL and -273 mL), fewer transfusions (OR 0.25 and 0.30), smaller transfused volumes (-1.98 and -1.86 units), shorter ICU stays (-4.0 and -2.3 days), fewer reinterventions (OR 0.45 and 0.56), and shorter hospital stays (-8.8 and -6.9 days), respectively.
conclusionsAlthough associated with longer operative time, RDP appears safe and may confer significant advantages over both laparoscopic and open surgery, including reduced 30-day mortality, lower conversion rates, and improved perioperative outcomes, particularly when performed in high-volume, well-equipped centers.
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.