Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 388

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

250 Robotic Pancreatic Resections: Safety and Feasibility

Open access
Zureikat, Amer H., Moser, A. James, Boone, Brian A., Bartlett, David L., Zenati, Mazen, Zeh, Herbert J.·2013·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Computer-assisted robotic surgery allows complex resections and anastomotic reconstructions to be performed with nearly identical standards to open surgery. We applied this technology to a variety of pancreatic resections to assess the safety, feasibility, versatility, and reliability of this technology. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospective database of robotic pancreatic resections at a single institution between August 2008 and November 2012 was performed. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 250 consecutive robotic pancreatic resections were analyzed; pancreaticoduodenectomy (132), distal pancreatectomy (83), central pancreatectomy (13), pancreatic enucleation (10), total pancreatectomy (5), Appleby resection (4), and Frey procedure (3). Thirty-day and 90-day mortality was 0.8% and 2.0%. Rate of Clavien 3 and 4 complications was 14% and 6%. The International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade C fistula rate was 4%. Mean operative time for the 2 most common procedures was 529 ± 103 minutes for pancreaticoduodenectomy and 257 ± 93 minutes for distal pancreatectomy. Continuous improvement in operative times was observed over the course of the experience. Conversion to open procedure was required in 16 patients (6%) (11 with pancreaticoduodenectomy, 2 with distal pancreatectomy, 2 with central pancreatectomy, 1 with total pancreatectomy) for failure to progress (14) and bleeding (2). CONCLUSIONS: This represents to our knowledge the largest series of robotic pancreatic resections. Safety and feasibility metrics including the low incidence of conversion support the robustness of this platform and suggest no unanticipated risks inherent to this new technology. By defining these early outcome metrics, this report begins to establish a framework for comparative effectiveness studies of this platform.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0b013e3182a4e87c

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 20 references

Cited by

  • Pancreatic cancer

    Kleeff, J., Korc, M., Apte, M., La Vecchia, C., Johnson, C. D., Biankin, A. V., Neale, R. E., Tempero, M., Tuveson, D. A., Hruban, R. H., et al. (2016) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.22 · Cited by 1,982

See all 388

Metadata

Authors
Zureikat, A. H., Moser, A. J., Boone, B. A., Bartlett, D. L., Zenati, M., & Zeh, H. J.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2013-10
Volume
258
Issue
4
Pages
554-562
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2026395193
Cited by
388
References
20
FWCI
18.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: 250 Robotic Pancreatic Resections: Safety and Feasibility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e3182a4e87c
The paper
Zureikat, A. H., Moser, A. J., Boone, B. A., Bartlett, D. L., Zenati, M., & Zeh, H. J. (2013). 250 Robotic Pancreatic Resections: Safety and Feasibility. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3182a4e87c

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.