ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a structured narrative review of learning curve, patient selection, and program readiness.
Review in Journal of robotic 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
Pancreaticoduodenectomy remains among the most technically demanding abdominal operations because of complex vascular dissection, multiple reconstructions, and persistent risk of procedure-specific morbidity. Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been developed to extend minimally invasive surgery to pancreatic head and periampullary diseases, offering stable three-dimensional visualization, articulating instruments, and improved suturing ergonomics. However, technical feasibility alone does not establish broad clinical value. This structured narrative review maps current evidence on RPD across perioperative outcomes, oncologic safety, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), learning curve, reconstruction, complex cases, cost, and implementation readiness. Evidence was interpreted according to study design, center experience, outcome consistency, and clinical generalizability. Available data support the feasibility of RPD in selected patients treated by experienced teams and suggest possible reductions in blood loss, transfusion, and length of stay compared with open surgery. In contrast, evidence remains less mature for CR-POPF reduction, major morbidity, long-term oncologic outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and routine use in complex vascular or post-neoadjuvant cases. The clinical role of RPD should therefore be determined by alignment among patient complexity, pancreatic remnant risk, surgeon-team maturity, institutional volume, and rescue capacity. We propose an evidence-informed framework for staged implementation, patient selection, program readiness, and predefined conversion triggers. RPD should be viewed as a selective, team-dependent strategy rather than a universal replacement for open pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474605What 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.