Robotic pancreatic enucleation versus laparoscopic pancreatic enucleation: a meta-analysis.
Jianyu Shi, Chenglou Zhu, Yongkun Zhou
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This meta-analysis compared robotic with laparoscopic pancreatic enucleation for perioperative outcomes. It pooled five cohort studies involving 272 patients (128 robotic and 144 laparoscopic). Operation time, blood loss, postoperative pancreatic fistula, bleeding, and major complications did not differ significantly between approaches. Hospital stay was statistically shorter after robotic enucleation (MD 1.22, 95% CI 0.29-2.16, P = 0.01), but the authors caution that this does not establish a clinically meaningful recovery benefit. Overall, the evidence was insufficient to show a clear difference in perioperative efficacy or safety.
Key findings
- Across five cohort studies, 272 patients underwent robotic (128) or laparoscopic (144) pancreatic enucleation.
- Operation time, blood loss, pancreatic fistula, postoperative bleeding, and major complications showed no statistically significant differences between approaches.
- Postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (MD 1.22, 95% CI 0.29-2.16, P = 0.01), though clinical importance is uncertain.
Why it matters
Pancreatic enucleation aims to preserve pancreatic tissue, so the choice of operative approach may affect perioperative outcomes. This synthesis does not establish a clear safety or efficacy advantage for robotic assistance. The shorter pooled hospital stay is a possible signal, but the observational evidence and uncertainty about its clinical meaning warrant cautious interpretation.
What to keep in mind
Only five cohort studies were available, leaving a small observational evidence base with potential residual confounding. Publication-bias and sensitivity analyses were omitted because fewer than 10 studies were eligible.