Valukas CS, Zaza NM, Vitello D, Odell DD, Merkow R, Bentrem DJ (2025) A comparative analysis of open versus minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomies. J Surg Oncol 131(5):816–826
van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Bosscha K, Brinkman DJ, van Dieren S, Dijkgraaf MG et al (2019) Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 4(3):199–207
Asbun HJ, Moekotte AL, Vissers FL, Kunzler F, Cipriani F, Alseidi A et al (2020) The Miami international evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection. Ann Surg 271(1):1–14
Huang XT, Xie JZ, Cai JP, Xu QC, Chen W, Huang CS, Li B, Lai JM, Liang LJ, Yin XY (2025) Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted and open pancreatoduodenectomy: a retrospective cohort study with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. The Int J Med Robotics Computer Assisted Surg 21(2):e70057
Armengol-García C, Blandin-Alvarez V, Sharma E, Salinas-Ruiz LE, González-Méndez ML, Monteiro dos Santos M et al (2025) Perioperative outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Surg Endosc. 39(3):1462–72
Klotz R, Mihaljevic AL, Kulu Y, Sander A, Klose C, Behnisch R et al (2024) Robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (EUROPA): a randomised controlled stage 2b trial. The Lancet Regional Health - Europe 39:100864
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Liu Q, Li M, Gao Y, Jiang T, Han B, Zhao G et al (2024) Effect of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy on postoperative length of hospital stay and complications for pancreatic head or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 9(5):428–437
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Van Roessel S, Mackay TM, Van Dieren S, Van Der Schelling GP, Nieuwenhuijs VB, Bosscha K et al (2020) Textbook outcome: nationwide analysis of a novel quality measure in pancreatic surgery. Ann Surg 271(1):155–162
Zureikat AH, Beane JD, Zenati MS, Al Abbas AI, Boone BA, Moser AJ et al (2021) 500 minimally invasive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies: one decade of optimizing performance. Ann Surg 273(5):966–972
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Wu Y, Li S, Yuan J, Zhang H, Wang M, Zhang Z et al (2023) Benchmarking: a novel measuring tool for outcome comparisons in surgery. Int J Surg 109(3):419–428
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Sweigert PJ, Eguia E, Baker MS, Paredes AZ, Tsilimigras DI, Dillhoff M et al (2020) Assessment of textbook oncologic outcomes following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol 121(6):936–944
Sánchez-Velázquez P, Muller X, Malleo G, Park JS, Hwang HK, Napoli N et al (2019) Benchmarks in pancreatic surgery. Ann Surg 270(2):211–218
Müller PC, Kuemmerli C, Cizmic A, Sinz S, Probst P, de Santibanes M et al (2022) Learning curves in open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatic surgery. Ann Surg Open 3(1):e111
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Zwart MJW, van den Broek B, de Graaf N, Suurmeijer JA, Augustinus S, te Riele WW et al (2023) The feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves in 635 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies following a multicenter training program. Ann Surg 278(6):e1232–e1241
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Abu Hilal M, van Ramshorst TME, Boggi U, Dokmak S, Edwin B, Keck T et al (2024) The Brescia internationally validated European guidelines on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (EGUMIPS). Ann Surg 279(1):45–57
Montagnini AL, Røsok BI, Asbun HJ, Barkun J, Besselink MG, Boggi U et al (2017) Standardizing terminology for minimally invasive pancreatic resection. HPB 19(3):182–189
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH)–an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142(1):20–25
Besselink MG, van Rijssen LB, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Montorsi M, Adham M et al (2017) Definition and classification of chyle leak after pancreatic operation: a consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery. Surgery 161(2):365–372
Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142(5):761–768
Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M et al (2017) The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161(3):584–591
Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R, Rahbari NN, Adam R, Capussotti L et al (2011) Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery 149(5):680–688
Edge SB, Byrd DR (2010) AJCC cancer staging handbook. 7th ed.
Kulshrestha S, Sweigert PJ, Tonelli C, Bunn C, Luchette FA, Abdelsattar ZM et al (2022) Textbook oncologic outcome in pancreaticoduodenectomy: Do regionalization efforts make sense? J Surg Oncol 125(3):414–424
Zhang J, Cai H, Zhang M, Wang X, Cai Y, Peng B (2024) Textbook oncologic outcomes are associated with increased overall survival in patients with pancreatic head cancer after undergoing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Surg Oncol 22(1):43
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Hox JJ, Moerbeek M, van de Schoot R (2017) Multilevel analysis. Third edition. Routledge, New York
Kreft I, de Leeuw J (1998) Introducing multilevel modeling. SAGE Publications, London
Chen L, Yuan S, Xu Q, Cui M, Li P, Liu W et al (2025) Outcomes evaluation of robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity score matching and learning curve analysis. Surg Endosc 39(6):3681–3690
Joseph N, Varghese C, Lucocq J, McGuinness MJ, Tingle S, Marchegiani G et al (2024) Network Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Open 5(4):e507
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Emmen AMLH, Zwart MJW, Khatkov IE, Boggi U, Groot Koerkamp B, Busch OR et al (2024) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study. Surgery 175(6):1587–1594
Uijterwijk BA, Moekotte A, Boggi U, Mazzola M, Groot Koerkamp B, Dalle Valle R et al (2025) Oncological resection and perioperative outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy for ampullary adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matched international multicenter cohort study. HPB 27(3):318–329
McCarron FN, Yoshino O, Müller PC, Wang H, Wang Y, Ricker A et al (2023) Expanding the utility of robotics for pancreaticoduodenectomy: a 10-year review and comparison to international benchmarks in pancreatic surgery. Surg Endosc 37(12):9591–9600
Augustinus S, Mackay TM, Andersson B, Beane JD, Busch OR, Gleeson EM et al (2023) Ideal outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 278(5):740–747
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kwon J, Kang CM, Jang JY, Yoon YS, Kwon HJ, Choi IS et al (2024) Perioperative textbook outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicenter retrospective cohort analysis in a Korean minimally invasive pancreatic surgery registry. Int J Surg 110(7):4249–4258
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Fu AQ, Huang XT, Cai JP, Huang CS, Zhang X, Xu QC et al (2023) Factors associated with textbook outcome after robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy: a single surgeon’s retrospective cohort. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 0(0):0–0
Comments (0)