Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Sep 2;31(1):104-112.
doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000846.

Comparison of 3 Minimally Invasive Methods Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Yunxiao Lyu  1 , Yunxiao Cheng, Bin Wang, SiCong Zhao, Liang Chen
Affiliations

Comparison of 3 Minimally Invasive Methods Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Yunxiao Lyu et al. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. .

Abstract

Background: The efficacy and safety of open distal pancreatectomy (DP), laparoscopic DP, robot-assisted laparoscopic DP, and robotic DP have not been established. The authors aimed to comprehensively compare these 4 surgical methods using a network meta-analysis.

Materials and methods: The authors systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies that evaluated at least 2 of the following pancreatectomy techniques: robot-assisted DP, laparoscopic DP, open DP, and robotic DP. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was applied to show the probability that each method would be the best for each outcome.

Results: Altogether, 46 trials with 8377 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Robotic DP showed the highest probability of having the least estimated blood loss (SUCRA, 90.9%), the lowest incidences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (SUCRA, 94.5%), clinically related postoperative pancreatic fistula (SUCRA, 94.6%), postoperative bleeding (SUCRA, 75.3%), reoperation (SUCRA, 96.4%), overall complications (SUCRA, 86.9%), and major complications (SUCRA, 99.3%), and the lowest mortality (SUCRA, 83.4%). Robotic DP also proved to be the best approach regarding the attainment of R0 resection (SUCRA, 75.4%) and the number of lymph nodes harvested (SUCRA, 64.1%).

Conclusion: Robotic DP seems to offer clinical and oncological advantages compared with other DP methods for addressing diseases of the pancreatic body and tail, although it may require a longer operation time and learning curve. The present results require confirmation in future head-to-head randomized controlled trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Flow diagram of the published articles evaluated for inclusion in this meta-analysis.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Network geometry of the included studies. A, Operation time (OT). B, Estimated blood loss (EBL). C, Spleen preservation (SP). D, Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). E, Clinically related POPF (CR-POPF). F, Postoperative bleeding (POBL). G, Reoperation. H, Overall complications (OCs). I, Major complications (MCs). J, Mortality. K, R0 resection. L, Number of lymph nodes harvested (LNH). LAP indicates laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy; ODP, open distal pancreatectomy; RADP, robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatectomy; RDP, robotic distal pancreatectomy.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

  • Robotic Versus Hand-Assisted Distal Pancreatectomy: A Comparative Single Center Retrospective Study.
    Essami N, Kazlow E, Dines E, Abu Shtaya A, Assaf W, Haddad R, Mahamid A. Essami N, et al. J Clin Med. 2025 Jul 11;14(14):4919. doi: 10.3390/jcm14144919. J Clin Med. 2025. PMID: 40725612 Free PMC article.
  • Short-Term Outcomes of Conventional Laparoscopic versus Robot-Assisted Distal Pancreatectomy for Malignancy: Evidence from US National Inpatient Sample, 2005-2018.
    Huang JM, Chen SH, Chen TH. Huang JM, et al. Cancers (Basel). 2024 Feb 29;16(5):1003. doi: 10.3390/cancers16051003. Cancers (Basel). 2024. PMID: 38473361 Free PMC article.
  • The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS).
    Abu Hilal M, van Ramshorst TME, Boggi U, Dokmak S, Edwin B, Keck T, Khatkov I, Ahmad J, Al Saati H, Alseidi A, Azagra JS, Björnsson B, Can FM, D'Hondt M, Efanov M, Espin Alvarez F, Esposito A, Ferrari G, Groot Koerkamp B, Gumbs AA, Hogg ME, Huscher CGS, Ielpo B, Ivanecz A, Jang JY, Liu R, Luyer MDP, Menon K, Nakamura M, Piardi T, Saint-Marc O, White S, Yoon YS, Zerbi A, Bassi C, Berrevoet F, Chan C, Coimbra FJ, Conlon KCP, Cook A, Dervenis C, Falconi M, Ferrari C, Frigerio I, Fusai GK, De Oliveira ML, Pinna AD, Primrose JN, Sauvanet A, Serrablo A, Smadi S, Badran A, Baychorov M, Bannone E, van Bodegraven EA, Emmen AMLH, Giani A, de Graaf N, van Hilst J, Jones LR, Levi Sandri GB, Pulvirenti A, Ramera M, Rashidian N, Sahakyan MA, Uijterwijk BA, Zampedri P, Zwart MJW, Alfieri S, Berti S, Butturini G, Di Benedetto F, Ettorre GM, Giuliante F, Jovine E, Memeo R, Portolani N, Ruzzenente A, Salvia R, Siriwardena AK, Besselink MG, Asbun HJ; Collaborators. Abu Hilal M, et al. Ann Surg. 2024 Jan 1;279(1):45-57. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006006. Epub 2023 Jul 14. Ann Surg. 2024. PMID: 37450702 Free PMC article.
  • Study International Multicentric Pancreatic Left Resections (SIMPLR): Does Surgical Approach Matter?
    Acciuffi S, Hilal MA, Ferrari C, Al-Madhi S, Chouillard MA, Messaoudi N, Croner RS, Gumbs AA. Acciuffi S, et al. Cancers (Basel). 2024 Mar 5;16(5):1051. doi: 10.3390/cancers16051051. Cancers (Basel). 2024. PMID: 38473411 Free PMC article.
  • International consensus guidelines on robotic pancreatic surgery in 2023.
    Liu R, Abu Hilal M, Besselink MG, Hackert T, Palanivelu C, Zhao Y, He J, Boggi U, Jang JY, Panaro F, Goh BKP, Efanov M, Nagakawa Y, Kim HJ, Yin X, Zhao Z, Shyr YM, Iyer S, Kakiashvili E, Han HS, Lee JH, Croner R, Wang SE, Marino MV, Prasad A, Wang W, He S, Yang K, Liu Q, Wang Z, Li M, Xu S, Wei K, Deng Z, Jia Y, van Ramshorst TME. Liu R, et al. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2024 Feb 1;13(1):89-104. doi: 10.21037/hbsn-23-132. Epub 2024 Jan 18. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2024. PMID: 38322212 Free PMC article. Review.
See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Asbun HJ, Stauffer JA. Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: overall outcomes and severity of complications using the Accordion Severity Grading System. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:810–819. - PubMed
    1. Chalikonda S, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Walsh RM. Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2397–2402. - PubMed
    1. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, et al. . Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1646–1657. - PubMed
    1. Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y, et al. . A multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2016;264:640–649. - PubMed
    1. Asbun HJ, Moekotte AL, Vissers FL, et al. . The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection. Ann Surg. 2020;271:1–14. - PubMed

Publication types