Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background: With the recent publication of the first randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing robotic partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) versus open partial pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) now providing high-level evidence, this study aims to analyze the short-term outcomes of RPD versus OPD to answer the ongoing clinical debate regarding the advantages and limitations of RPD, particularly in terms of perioperative safety. Methods: We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL accessed last on 26th of November 2025 for prospective studies. The main outcome was 90-day mortality; secondary outcomes included complications, and short-term oncological outcomes (R0 resection rate), among others. A random-effects model was employed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias-tool (RoB 2) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the ROBINS-I-tool for comparative cohort trials (CCTs). The certainty of evidence was graded according to GRADE. (PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42024523577). Findings: Out of a total of 7388 screened studies, 358 studies underwent full-text screening leading to inclusion of 7 studies (3 RCTs and 4 CCTs). No significant difference was observed between RPD and OPD for 90-day mortality OR (95% CI) 1.07 (0.04, 29.40), clinically relevant complications including postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), or reoperation rates OR (95% CI) 1.10 (0.47, 2.59). Lymph node yield, R0 resection rate, operative time and length of hospital stay were also not significantly different. However, readmission rates favored OPD OR (95% CI) 1.22 (1.15, 1.28), while there was a lower amount of intraoperative blood loss in RPD SMD (95% CI) -0.98 (-1.65, -0.32). Interpretation: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, mortality following RPD was comparable to OPD. RPD has demonstrated similar rates for major complications and short-term oncological outcomes and can thus be equally recommended as OPD but this recommendation is limited to experienced, high-volume centers. Funding: This systematic review and meta-analysis was investigator-initiated and did not receive additional funding.
Polychronidis et al. (Fri,) studied this question.