ArticleBMC surgery2026
Robotic vs. laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a leap towards superior outcomes?
Article in BMC surgery, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is one of the latest and most advanced minimally invasive surgical approaches for the treatment of pancreatic body-tail tumors. However, its superiority over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) remains not fully established. Moreover, Textbook Outcome (TO) represents an ideal short-term postoperative outcome. Yet few studies have used it as an endpoint when comparing these two minimally invasive surgical techniques.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from all consecutive patients who underwent standard minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) at a high-volume pancreatic center between January 2019 and December 2022. Demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as perioperative variables, were compared between the RDP and LDP groups. Additionally, we calculated the rate of TO achievement following MIDP and performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine factors independently associated with TO achievement.
resultsA total of 196 patients who underwent standard MIDP were included in the analysis, with 97 in the RDP group and 99 in the LDP group. Compared with LDP, RDP was associated with a shorter operative time (129.48 vs. 177.27 min, P < 0.001) and less intraoperative blood loss (50 vs. 100 mL, P < 0.001). The RDP group exhibited a shorter postoperative hospital stay (10 vs. 11 days, P = 0.031) and a higher TO rate (68.0% vs. 53.5%, P = 0.042), with no statistically significant differences in the incidence of major postoperative complications between the two groups. Overall, 60.7% of patients (119/196) achieved TO. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that advanced age (≥ 75 years) (OR 3.758, 95% CI 1.480–9.546, P = 0.005), being overweight (OR 2.366, 95% CI 1.243–4.502, P = 0.009), and prolonged operative time (> 232 min) (OR 2.554, 95% CI 1.096–5.952, P = 0.030) were independent risk factors for failure to achieve TO after MIDP.
conclusionRDP has distinct advantages, including shorter operative time, less intraoperative bleeding, shorter postoperative hospital stays, and higher TO rate. For MIDP, advanced age, overweight, and prolonged operative time are associated with TO.
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.