Table 1 Characteristics of included studies.

From: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy provides better histopathological outcomes as compared to its open counterpart: a meta-analysis

Author

Publication

Design

Number of centers involved

Primary endpoint(s)

Sample size (total n = 12,579)

Number of patients (Robotic vs. Open) (total 2,175 vs. 10,404)

Indication for surgery (benign or malignant disease)

Primarily involved organ (pancreas, biliary tract, duodenum)

Level of evidence (Oxford CEBM)

Baker

Int J Med Robot 201636

Prospective cohort study (2012–2013)

1

NS

71

22 vs. 49

B + M

P + BT + D

2b

Bao

J Gastrointest Surg 201437

Retrospective cohort study (2009–2011)

1

NS

56

28 vs. 28

B + M

P + BT + D

2c

Bencini

Surg Endosc 202038

Prospective cohort study (2014–2018)

1

Postoperative (30-day) events

121

38 vs. 83

B + M

P + BT + D

2b

Boggi

World J Surg 201628

Retrospective cohort study (2008–2014)

1

NS

119

83 vs. 36

B + M

P + BT + D

2c

Boone

HPB 201434

Abstract; Prospective cohort study (2008–2013)

NR

NS

156

58 vs. 98

NR

NR

2c

Buchs

World J Surg 201139

Retrospective cohort study (2002–2010)

1

NS

83

44 vs. 39

B + M

P + BT + D

2c

Butt

HPB 201640

Abstract; Retrospective cohort study (2014–2015)

1

NS

67

12 vs. 55

NR

NR

2c

Cai

J Gastrointest Surg 201935

Retrospective cohort study (2011–2018)

1

CR-POPF rate

865

460 vs. 405

B + M

NR

2c

Chalikonda

Surg Endosc 201230

Prospective cohort study (2009–2010)

1

NR

60

30 vs. 30

B + M

NR

2c

Chen

Surg Endosc 201541

Prospective cohort study (2010–2013)

1

NR

180

60 vs. 120

B + M

P + BT + D

2b

Girgis

Ann Surg 201942

Retrospective cohort study (2011–2016)

5

NR

361

163 vs. 198

M

P + BT + D

2c

Hammill

HPB 201043

Abstract; Retrospective cohort study (2005–2009)

1

NR

77

8 vs. 69

B + M

P + BT

2c

Ielpo

Updates Surg 201944

Retrospective cohort study (2010–2017)

1

NS

34

17 vs. 17

B + M

NR

2c

Kauffmann

Surg Endosc 201945

Retrospective cohort study (2014–2017)

1

Positive margin rate

268

93 vs. 175

M

P

2c

Kim

J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 201846

Retrospective cohort study (2015–2017)

1

NR

237

51 vs. 186

B + M

P + BT + D

2c

Klompmaker

Ann Surg 202047

Retrospective cohort study (2012–2017)

14

30-day morbidity

920

191 vs. 729

B + M

P + BT + D

2c

Lai

Int J Surg 201248

Retrospective cohort study (2000–2012)

1

NS

87

20 vs. 67

B + M

P + BT + D

2c

Marino

J Robot Surg 201949

Retrospective cohort study (2014–2016)

1

NR

70

35 vs. 35

M

P + BT + D

2c

McMillan§

Jama Surg 201731

Retrospective cohort study (2003–2015)

16

POPF rate

2,846

185 vs. 2661

B + M

P + BT + D

2c

Mejia

Surg Endosc 201550

Abstract; Prospective cohort study (2013–2014)

1

Morbidity

26

14 vs. 12

NR

NR

2c

Napoli§

Surg Endosc 201827

Retrospective cohort study (2007–2014)

1

CR-POPF rate

309

82 vs. 227

B + M

P + BT + D

2c

Shi

JAMA Surg 202051

Retrospective cohort study (2017–2018)

1

NR

834

200 vs. 634

B + M

P + BT + D

2c

Varley§

HPB 201932

Retrospective cohort study (2011–2016)

1

Length of hospital stay

282

133 vs. 149

B + M

P + BT + D

2c

Walsh§

Surg Endosc 201129

Abstract; Retrospective cohort study (2009–2010)

1

NR

50

25 vs. 25

NR

NR

2c

Wang

Surgery 201852

Prospective cohort study (2012–2017)

1

CR-POPF rate

296

118 vs. 178

B + M

P + BT + D

2b

Wilson§

HPB 201933

Abstract; Retrospective cohort study (2011–2017)

1

NR

190

116 vs. 74

M

P + BT + D

2c

Zhou

Int J Med Robot 201153

Retrospective cohort study (2009)

1

NR

16

8 vs. 8

M

P + BT + D

2c

Zimmerman

HPB 201854

Retrospective cohort study (2014–2015)

1

30-day mortality and morbidity

6547

211 vs. 6,336

B + M

P + BT + D

2c

Zureikat

Ann Surg 20168

Retrospective cohort study (2011–2015)

8

NS

1028

211 vs. 817

B + M

P + BT + D

2b

  1. CEBM Centers for Evidence-Based Medicine; B benign; M malignant; P pancreas; BT biliary tract; D duodenum; NR not reported; NS not specified.
  2. §Studies that were excluded from the quantitative synthesis.