SynthesisBMC surgery2026
Perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with GRADE evaluation.
Synthesis 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical resection through pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) represents the only curative option for periampullary and pancreatic head tumors. Recently, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to the open approach (OPD). However, the safety, feasibility, and short-term oncologic adequacy of LPD compared to OPD remain a matter of controversy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes of LPD versus OPD in patients with periampullary and pancreatic head primaries.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for RCTs comparing LPD and OPD in adult periampullary tumor patients. Key outcomes analyzed included operative time, blood loss, hospital length of stay, complications, mortality, and lymph node harvest. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool, and the certainty of evidence was graded via GRADE.
resultsSeven RCTs were included, revealing that LPD is associated with longer operative times (MD~50.90 min) but significantly reduced blood loss (MD-88.83 mL), shorter hospital stays (MD-1.33 days), and fewer transfusions (RR 0.75). No significant differences were observed in 90-day mortality, overall or severe complications, lymph node retrieval, or R0 resection rates. The GRADE rating was high for clinically relevant gastric emptying, and moderate or low certainty for most other outcomes.
conclusionLPD provides statistically significant perioperative advantages without compromising oncological outcomes, suggesting it is a safe and effective alternative to OPD in experienced centers.
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.