ArticleJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2026
Robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: Portal vein-first vs artery-first approach.
Article in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has emerged as a promising approach for complex pancreatic surgeries. Artery-first approach pancreaticoduodenectomy (AFAPD) prioritizes the early assessment of arterial involvement to improve surgical outcomes. This study compares the clinical, perioperative, and oncological outcomes of AFAPD and traditional portal vein-first pancreaticoduodenectomy (tPD) in patients undergoing RPD.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 151 patients who underwent RPD at a tertiary center in Taiwan from June 2019 to July 2025. Patients were categorized into robotic tPD (n = 81) and AFAPD (n = 70) groups. Propensity score matching (PSM, 1:1) was performed to reduce selection bias. Survival outcomes were analyzed through the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards models were employed to estimate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsAfter PSM, no significant difference was observed in the baseline characteristics of both groups. In the matched cohort, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of operative time (518.5 vs 480.0 minutes, p = 0.269) or estimated blood loss (200 vs 150 mL, p = 0.106). However, compared with the tPD group, the AFAPD group was associated with a significantly lower rate of delayed gastric emptying (DGE, 15.4% vs 36.5%, p = 0.027). Other complications, such as postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (3.8% vs 11.5%, p = 0.289) and abdominal abscess (1.9% vs 7.7%, p = 0.375), showed lower trends in the AFAPD group than in the tPD group but did not reach statistical significance in the matched cohort. The AFAPD group also had a higher incidence of chylous leakage (19.2% vs 7.7%, p = 0.146) than the tPD group. Overall survival was significantly shorter in the AFAPD group than in the tPD group because of the retrospective design of this study and the recent adoption of the AFAPD approach (15.47 vs 36.15 months, p < 0.001).
conclusionRobotic AFAPD provides perioperative outcomes comparable to those yielded by tPD while significantly reducing DGE. While it has a higher trend of chylous leakage than tPD, it remains a technically superior approach for ensuring early arterial assessment and surgical radicality.
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.