ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a bibliometric analysis of trends, key contributors, and collaborations.
Article 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Research Trends and Knowledge Evolution of Surgical Approaches in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Bibliometric Analysis.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingReview
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
Abstract
Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is a technically complex and resource-intensive procedure, for which bibliometric analysis provides an ideal framework to evaluate the evolution and impact of scholarly work. This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of 222 publications from 2010 to 2025. The literature demonstrates a strong growth trend, with an annual growth rate of 29.08%, an average document age of 3.25 years, and a mean of 16.63 citations per document. Analysis of annual trends identified modest output from 2010 to 2015 (1-6 documents/year) with mean total citations per article from 4.00 to 101.75, indicative of early-stage development. A period of steady growth occurred from 2016 to 2021 (3-25 documents/year) with rising citations, followed by rapid expansion from 2022 to 2025, peaking at 46 documents in 2025. The mean total citations per article and mean total citations per year in this most recent period declined (13.64 to 0.91 and 3.41 to 0.91, respectively), consistent with the recency of these publications. Key contributors include Boggi U. as the most prolific author (26 publications), followed by Hogg M.E (24), Besselink M.G (21), Kauffmann E.F (20), and Zureikat A.H (20). The United States was the leading contributing country (n = 72), followed by Italy (60), China (35), The Netherlands (32), and Japan (31), reflecting a concentration of research in high-income nations. The leading funding sponsors were Intuitive Surgical and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (n = 8 each), and the predominant publication venues were Surgical Endoscopy (32) and Annals of Surgical Oncology (23). Co-authorship networks for authors, institutions, and countries were mapped, revealing collaborative patterns and key partnerships. N-gram analysis (uni-, bi-, and tri-grams) was performed using R Studio, and keyword clustering was conducted using VOSviewer, alongside an analysis of the temporal dynamics of the top 100 recurring terms. An examination of the most cited publications revealed dominant research themes: comparative outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches using propensity score-matching and short-term outcomes; learning curves and technical proficiency; procedure-specific adaptations like vascular resections and ERAS pathways; and evidence synthesis via systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In conclusion, this bibliometric and co-word analysis delineates the rapid expansion, key actors, and evolving thematic focus of RPD research, highlighting its increasing methodological rigor and a growing emphasis on technical refinement and evidence-based practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41400741What 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.