ArticleBMC surgery2026
Safety and oncologic efficacy of robotic surgery compared to open surgery after neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer.
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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has become the recommended treatment approach for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, pancreatic peritumoral fibrosis and proximity of the tumor to major vessels make surgery after NAT challenging. The feasibility and safety of robotic approaches remain unclear.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on consecutive pancreatic cancer patients who underwent either open pancreatic surgeries (OPS) or robotic pancreatic surgeries (RPS) following NAT between February 2017 and April 2025. Outcomes, including R0 resection rates, postoperative complication rates, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS), were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe rate of combined vascular resection and reconstruction was significantly higher in OPS group compared to RPS group following NAT. A total of 43 patients underwent surgical resection which did not require venous segmental resection and reconstruction, including 23 RPS and 20 OPS, were finally included in the analysis. The two groups were well balanced in baseline characteristics, except for BMI. In the RPS group, one case (4.3%) was converted into laparotomy. The RPS group was associated with longer operative time (340.0 min vs. 254.0 min, p = 0.015). The number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher in the RPS group compared to the OPS group(25 vs. 18, p = 0.049). There were no significant differences in R0 resection rates between the groups. The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the RPS group (21.7% vs. 55.0%, p = 0.024), while the rates of severe complications, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula, and postoperative hemorrhage did not differ between groups. Postoperative hospital stay was slightly shorter in the RPS group, though not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in DFS or OS.
conclusionIn carefully selected patients with pancreatic cancer following neoadjuvant therapy who did not require vascular segmental resection and reconstruction, a robotic approach appeared technically feasible and was associated with favorable short-term postoperative outcomes and a greater lymph node yield. These findings should be considered exploratory, and further prospective studies are warranted to better define the role of robotic surgery in this setting.
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.