ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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 Impact of Obesity on Intraoperative, Oncological, and Postoperative Endpoints in Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy.World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Digital Twin-Based Virtual Reality Framework for Interaction and AI-Assisted Control of a Parallel Surgical Robot.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Interest of the Robotic Approach for Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly Patients in a Setting of Limited Robotic Platform Access: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison with Open Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is a less invasive alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) with the potential for perioperative advantage. Concerns remain regarding its technical difficulty, cost, and oncologic adequacy.
methodsReview of PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase databases was conducted (January 2000-October 2025), focusing on systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and significant comparative studies of RPD. Outcomes assessed were perioperative outcomes, oncologic sufficiency, learning curve, model training, cost-effectiveness, and future developments.
resultsSeveral studies report comparable R0 rates and lymph node yield between RPD and OPD, with reduced blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and faster recovery in high-volume centers. Morbidity (35-50%) and 90-day mortality (<2%) are similar to open or laparoscopic surgery. Competence is usually achieved after 40-60 cases, while optimal outcomes are achieved after 80-100 procedures. Structured mentorship and simulation training improve safety and reproducibility. Novel technologies such as augmented reality, intraoperative fluorescence, and artificial intelligence-based navigation may also enhance accuracy and shorten the learning curve.
conclusionsRPD appears to be a safe and effective minimally invasive option in carefully selected patients if done in specialized, high-volume centers. Future studies need to resolve long-term oncologic results, cost-effectiveness, and the role of next-generation robotic systems.
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.