SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: With the aging population and increasing indications for pancreatic surgery, more elderly patients are being considered for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been increasingly adopted; however, its safety and efficacy in elderly patients remain controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of RPD versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in elderly patients. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched from inception to February 18, 2026. Studies comparing RPD and OPD in elderly patients were included. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: A total of 6 studies including 2, 965 patients (RPD group: 482 patients; OPD group: 2, 483 patients) were included. Compared with the OPD group, the RPD group had lower overall morbidity (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.92), fewer major complications (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94), less intraoperative blood loss (MD, -119.25 mL; 95% CI, -141.36 to -97.14), lower blood transfusion rates (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.72), and shorter hospital stay (MD, -1.63 days; 95% CI, -2.88 to -0.38). No significant differences were observed between the groups in mortality (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.54-1.82), operative time (MD, 100.76 min; 95% CI, -57.92 to 259.43), postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-1.00), delayed gastric emptying (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.99-2.02), or reoperation rates (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.72-2.13). Conclusions: This study suggests that RPD is a safe and feasible approach for elderly patients, with perioperative outcomes comparable to those of OPD. Additionally, RPD may be associated with reduced postoperative morbidity, less intraoperative blood loss, lower transfusion requirements, and shorter hospital stay. High-quality randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate these findings and further assess long-term outcomes. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420261444617.
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.