SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic distal pancreatectomy: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of classic, Kimura, and Warshaw techniques.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Distal pancreatectomy (DP) remains a technically challenging procedure associated with substantial morbidity. With the advent of robotic surgery, three primary techniques have emerged: robotic classic distal pancreatectomy (RCDP; including splenectomy), the vessel-preserving Kimura technique (KT), and the vessel-sacrificing Warshaw technique (WT). These approaches differ in splenic vessel management, leading to varying perioperative risks and long-term splenic outcomes. We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing these techniques across multiple clinical endpoints. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through December 2023, supplemented by manual citation screening. Eligible studies included randomized trials or comparative observational cohorts reporting ≥ 2 techniques with extractable data on operative time, blood loss, or spleen preservation. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed via I
Indexed as
Identifiers
41351631What 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.