Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups

Background Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs betwe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical endoscopy 2023-06, Vol.37 (6), p.4131-4143
Hauptverfasser: van Ramshorst, Tess M. E., van Bodegraven, Eduard A., Zampedri, Pietro, Kasai, Meidai, Besselink, Marc G., Abu Hilal, Mohammad
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 4143
container_issue 6
container_start_page 4131
container_title Surgical endoscopy
container_volume 37
creator van Ramshorst, Tess M. E.
van Bodegraven, Eduard A.
Zampedri, Pietro
Kasai, Meidai
Besselink, Marc G.
Abu Hilal, Mohammad
description Background Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay. Results Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18–34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI − 84.49–24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36–0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37–3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24–0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67–6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67–1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37–4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79–4799.00). Conclusions RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00464-023-09894-y
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10235152</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2776515523</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-729ba9a688f2b050d4e1c191900188116c6ce1717897e91255dc676761bc68093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9vFSEUxYnR2NfqF3BhSNy4Qbk8ZgA3pmm0mjQxMbomDMN70swMIzDPTPzy3vpq_bMwLFjc3zlcziHkCfAXwLl6WTiXrWRcbBk32ki23iMbkFvBhAB9n2y42XImlJEn5LSUa468geYhOdm2SoNs1YZ8_5i6VJkrJZYaenoIuSyFDm52ORWf5uhpjyM30NlNPgdXg69pXF9RR8uKmtFVZHI4xPCNuqmnY6iOuckNK3rSOPlh6eO0R32NYaq0LN0-p2Uuj8iDnRtKeHx7n5HPb998unjHrj5cvr84v2K-kVCZEqZzxrVa70THG97LAB4MGM5Ba4DWtz6AAqWNCgZE0_S-VXig863GDM7I66PvvHRj6D0ukd1g5xxHl1ebXLR_T6b4xe7TwQJG20Aj0OH5rUNOX5dQqh1j8WEY3BTSUqxQqkUQSUSf_YNepyVjGkhpAVJLI24MxZHymHLJYXe3DXB7U649lmtxA_uzXLui6Omf_7iT_GoTge0RKDia9iH_fvs_tj8AKp6y6Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2821484922</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>van Ramshorst, Tess M. E. ; van Bodegraven, Eduard A. ; Zampedri, Pietro ; Kasai, Meidai ; Besselink, Marc G. ; Abu Hilal, Mohammad</creator><creatorcontrib>van Ramshorst, Tess M. E. ; van Bodegraven, Eduard A. ; Zampedri, Pietro ; Kasai, Meidai ; Besselink, Marc G. ; Abu Hilal, Mohammad</creatorcontrib><description>Background Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay. Results Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18–34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI − 84.49–24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36–0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37–3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24–0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67–6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67–1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37–4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79–4799.00). Conclusions RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0930-2794</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2218</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-09894-y</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36781467</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Abdominal Surgery ; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal - surgery ; Gastroenterology ; Gynecology ; Hepatology ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Laparoscopy - methods ; Length of Stay ; Lymphatic system ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Operative Time ; Pancreatectomy ; Pancreatectomy - methods ; Pancreatic cancer ; Pancreatic Neoplasms ; Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology ; Proctology ; Retrospective Studies ; Review ; Review Article ; Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods ; Robotics ; Spleen ; Surgery ; Systematic review ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Surgical endoscopy, 2023-06, Vol.37 (6), p.4131-4143</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023</rights><rights>2023. The Author(s).</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-729ba9a688f2b050d4e1c191900188116c6ce1717897e91255dc676761bc68093</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-729ba9a688f2b050d4e1c191900188116c6ce1717897e91255dc676761bc68093</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00464-023-09894-y$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00464-023-09894-y$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36781467$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Ramshorst, Tess M. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Bodegraven, Eduard A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zampedri, Pietro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kasai, Meidai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Besselink, Marc G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abu Hilal, Mohammad</creatorcontrib><title>Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups</title><title>Surgical endoscopy</title><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><description>Background Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay. Results Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18–34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI − 84.49–24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36–0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37–3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24–0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67–6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67–1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37–4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79–4799.00). Conclusions RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.</description><subject>Abdominal Surgery</subject><subject>Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal - surgery</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Hepatology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>Lymphatic system</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Operative Time</subject><subject>Pancreatectomy</subject><subject>Pancreatectomy - methods</subject><subject>Pancreatic cancer</subject><subject>Pancreatic Neoplasms</subject><subject>Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Proctology</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Review Article</subject><subject>Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Robotics</subject><subject>Spleen</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0930-2794</issn><issn>1432-2218</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU9vFSEUxYnR2NfqF3BhSNy4Qbk8ZgA3pmm0mjQxMbomDMN70swMIzDPTPzy3vpq_bMwLFjc3zlcziHkCfAXwLl6WTiXrWRcbBk32ki23iMbkFvBhAB9n2y42XImlJEn5LSUa468geYhOdm2SoNs1YZ8_5i6VJkrJZYaenoIuSyFDm52ORWf5uhpjyM30NlNPgdXg69pXF9RR8uKmtFVZHI4xPCNuqmnY6iOuckNK3rSOPlh6eO0R32NYaq0LN0-p2Uuj8iDnRtKeHx7n5HPb998unjHrj5cvr84v2K-kVCZEqZzxrVa70THG97LAB4MGM5Ba4DWtz6AAqWNCgZE0_S-VXig863GDM7I66PvvHRj6D0ukd1g5xxHl1ebXLR_T6b4xe7TwQJG20Aj0OH5rUNOX5dQqh1j8WEY3BTSUqxQqkUQSUSf_YNepyVjGkhpAVJLI24MxZHymHLJYXe3DXB7U649lmtxA_uzXLui6Omf_7iT_GoTge0RKDia9iH_fvs_tj8AKp6y6Q</recordid><startdate>20230601</startdate><enddate>20230601</enddate><creator>van Ramshorst, Tess M. E.</creator><creator>van Bodegraven, Eduard A.</creator><creator>Zampedri, Pietro</creator><creator>Kasai, Meidai</creator><creator>Besselink, Marc G.</creator><creator>Abu Hilal, Mohammad</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230601</creationdate><title>Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups</title><author>van Ramshorst, Tess M. E. ; van Bodegraven, Eduard A. ; Zampedri, Pietro ; Kasai, Meidai ; Besselink, Marc G. ; Abu Hilal, Mohammad</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-729ba9a688f2b050d4e1c191900188116c6ce1717897e91255dc676761bc68093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Surgery</topic><topic>Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal - surgery</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Hepatology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>Lymphatic system</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Operative Time</topic><topic>Pancreatectomy</topic><topic>Pancreatectomy - methods</topic><topic>Pancreatic cancer</topic><topic>Pancreatic Neoplasms</topic><topic>Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Proctology</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Review Article</topic><topic>Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Robotics</topic><topic>Spleen</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Ramshorst, Tess M. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Bodegraven, Eduard A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zampedri, Pietro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kasai, Meidai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Besselink, Marc G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abu Hilal, Mohammad</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Ramshorst, Tess M. E.</au><au>van Bodegraven, Eduard A.</au><au>Zampedri, Pietro</au><au>Kasai, Meidai</au><au>Besselink, Marc G.</au><au>Abu Hilal, Mohammad</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups</atitle><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle><stitle>Surg Endosc</stitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><date>2023-06-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>4131</spage><epage>4143</epage><pages>4131-4143</pages><issn>0930-2794</issn><eissn>1432-2218</eissn><abstract>Background Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay. Results Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18–34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI − 84.49–24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36–0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37–3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24–0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67–6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67–1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37–4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79–4799.00). Conclusions RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>36781467</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00464-023-09894-y</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0930-2794
ispartof Surgical endoscopy, 2023-06, Vol.37 (6), p.4131-4143
issn 0930-2794
1432-2218
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10235152
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals
subjects Abdominal Surgery
Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal - surgery
Gastroenterology
Gynecology
Hepatology
Humans
Laparoscopy
Laparoscopy - methods
Length of Stay
Lymphatic system
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Meta-analysis
Operative Time
Pancreatectomy
Pancreatectomy - methods
Pancreatic cancer
Pancreatic Neoplasms
Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology
Proctology
Retrospective Studies
Review
Review Article
Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods
Robotics
Spleen
Surgery
Systematic review
Treatment Outcome
title Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-18T13%3A01%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Robot-assisted%20versus%20laparoscopic%20distal%20pancreatectomy:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis%20including%20patient%20subgroups&rft.jtitle=Surgical%20endoscopy&rft.au=van%20Ramshorst,%20Tess%20M.%20E.&rft.date=2023-06-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=4131&rft.epage=4143&rft.pages=4131-4143&rft.issn=0930-2794&rft.eissn=1432-2218&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00464-023-09894-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2776515523%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2821484922&rft_id=info:pmid/36781467&rfr_iscdi=true