ArticleBMC surgery2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity score matching analysis of Taiwan's national health insurance database.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is the gold standard treatment for localized pancreatic head tumors and has a high surgical morbidity rate. In recent years, minimally invasive approaches, such as laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), have gained prominence. However, it remains controversial whether RPD has better clinical outcomes than LPD does. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis nationwide cohort study used data from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database to investigate patients who underwent RPD or LPD between 2017 and 2021. Full propensity score matching was used to estimate the average treatment effect between the two groups. The primary outcomes included reoperation, optimal outcomes, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) and 14-day readmission.
resultsIn total, 854 patients were included in the study, 590 of whom underwent RPD and 264 of whom underwent LPD. After propensity score matching, RPD was significantly associated with a shorter ICU stay (mean difference [MD], -1 d, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.8 to -0.2 day, p = 0.020), lower reoperation rate (risk difference [RD] -6.2%, 95% CI: -9.3% to -3.1%, p < 0.001), and shorter LOS (MD, -3.5 d, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.5 to -1.6 day, p < 0.001) than was LPD. There were no statistically significant differences in optimal outcomes, 14-day readmission rates, or hospital mortality. Moderation analysis revealed that high-volume centers had higher rates of optimal outcomes and shorter hospital stays compared to low-volume centers.
conclusionOur results suggest that RPD has better postoperative outcomes than does LPD. Additionally, high-volume centers have better clinical outcomes than low-volume centers do.
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.