From Open to Robot-Assisted Pancreatoduodenectomy: What RCTs Really Show
Anno:
2026
Tipologia prodotto:
Articolo in Rivista
Tipologia ANVUR:
Articolo su rivista
Lingua:
Inglese
Referee:
No
Nome rivista:
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
ISSN Rivista:
2077-0383
N° Volume:
15
Numero o Fascicolo:
3
Intervallo pagine:
N/A-N/A
Parole chiave:
Robotic surgery
Breve descrizione dei contenuti:
Introduction: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), including laparoscopic
(LPD) and robotic approaches (RPD), has gained increasing attention as an alternative
to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). Despite rapid technological progress, concerns
persist regarding safety, reproducibility, and oncological adequacy. The publication of randomized
controlled trials (RCTs) provides essential high-level evidence to reassess the true
benefits and limitations of MIPD. Methods: This narrative review synthesizes all available
RCTs comparing LPD and RPD with OPD. Major domains evaluated include mortality,
major morbidity, intraoperative parameters, postoperative recovery, oncological outcomes,
conversion, costs, and the influence of surgeon experience and institutional volume. The
objective is to contextualize RCT findings rather than perform a quantitative meta-analysis.
Discussion: Across studies, LPD demonstrates comparable mortality and complication
rates to OPD in high-volume centers, with consistent reductions intraoperative blood loss
(IBL) and shorter recovery or length of stay (LOS). RPD shows more heterogeneous results:
one large trial reported improved postoperative recovery, whereas the EUROPA trial
identified higher rates of pancreatic fistula (POPF) and delayed gastric emptying (DGE)
alongside significantly increased costs. Both LPD and RPD achieve oncological outcomes
equivalent to OPD, and 3-year survival data confirm the long-term non-inferiority of LPD.
However, operative time remains longer for all minimally invasive approaches, and conversion
persists as a marker of technical difficulty and incomplete learning curve. Conclusions:
Current RCT evidence indicates that MIPD is safe, feasible, and oncologically sound only
when performed by surgeons who have surpassed the demanding learning curve within
specialized, high-volume centers. The benefits, mainly reduced IBL and faster recovery,
must be weighed against longer operative times, conversion risks, and substantially higher
costs for RPD. MIPD should therefore be considered an advanced option rather than a
universal standard, and its broader implementation requires structured training pathways,
appropriate patient selection, and institutional readiness.