Scholarlink

<p>Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) was developed to overcome technical limitations of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), yet uncertainty persists regarding oncologic adequacy, learning-curve effects, and outcomes in high-risk subgroups. We synthesized current evidence to address these gaps. We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, from inception to 2025 to identify comparative studies of RDP versus LDP. Using random-effects models, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and performed subgroup analyses, including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), along with meta-regression to explore heterogeneity sources. Sixty-four studies comprising 15,790 patients (5,723 RDP; 10,067 LDP; mean age 60.5 years; BMI 26.1 kg/m²) were included. RDP resulted in lower blood loss (WMD − 52.0 mL; p &lt; 0.00001), fewer conversions (RR 0.49; p &lt; 0.00001), and fewer unplanned splenectomies (RR 0.59; p &lt; 0.0001). Operative time was longer (WMD + 24.06 min; p &lt; 0.00001). Postoperative morbidity, POPF, PPH, infection, reintervention, and mortality were comparable. Length of stay was shorter with RDP (WMD − 0.57 days; p &lt; 0.00001). Although lymph node yield appeared higher with LDP in the overall and PDAC cohorts, this difference was no longer significant in a sensitivity analysis, and R0 resection rates remained comparable. Costs were higher with RDP, with substantial heterogeneity. RDP and LDP demonstrate comparable safety and oncologic outcomes. RDP reduces blood loss, conversions, and splenectomy but increases operative time and cost. The operative time disadvantage likely reflects learning-curve. Selective use in high-risk and complex resections is supported; cost-effectiveness warrants further study.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups and meta-regression analyses

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月14日

查看全文
  • Tala Sabah,
  • Simon Ray,
  • Hinal Patel,
  • Pratiksha Baliga,
  • Henry ka-hey mah,
  • Rudraksh Parekh,
  • Thirunavukkarasu Sivashankari,
  • Ayushi Agnihotri,
  • Abdiasis Hassan Ismail,
  • Ali Salman

摘要

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) was developed to overcome technical limitations of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), yet uncertainty persists regarding oncologic adequacy, learning-curve effects, and outcomes in high-risk subgroups. We synthesized current evidence to address these gaps. We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, from inception to 2025 to identify comparative studies of RDP versus LDP. Using random-effects models, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and performed subgroup analyses, including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), along with meta-regression to explore heterogeneity sources. Sixty-four studies comprising 15,790 patients (5,723 RDP; 10,067 LDP; mean age 60.5 years; BMI 26.1 kg/m²) were included. RDP resulted in lower blood loss (WMD − 52.0 mL; p < 0.00001), fewer conversions (RR 0.49; p < 0.00001), and fewer unplanned splenectomies (RR 0.59; p < 0.0001). Operative time was longer (WMD + 24.06 min; p < 0.00001). Postoperative morbidity, POPF, PPH, infection, reintervention, and mortality were comparable. Length of stay was shorter with RDP (WMD − 0.57 days; p < 0.00001). Although lymph node yield appeared higher with LDP in the overall and PDAC cohorts, this difference was no longer significant in a sensitivity analysis, and R0 resection rates remained comparable. Costs were higher with RDP, with substantial heterogeneity. RDP and LDP demonstrate comparable safety and oncologic outcomes. RDP reduces blood loss, conversions, and splenectomy but increases operative time and cost. The operative time disadvantage likely reflects learning-curve. Selective use in high-risk and complex resections is supported; cost-effectiveness warrants further study.