{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,8]],"date-time":"2026-06-08T15:58:14Z","timestamp":1780934294942,"version":"3.54.1"},"reference-count":55,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"6","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,30]],"date-time":"2026-03-30T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1774828800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,30]],"date-time":"2026-03-30T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1774828800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/100018828","name":"Intuitive Foundation","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/100018828","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]},{"DOI":"10.13039\/501100004622","name":"KWF Kankerbestrijding","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/501100004622","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]},{"DOI":"10.13039\/100010477","name":"Intuitive Surgical","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/100010477","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]},{"DOI":"10.13039\/501100008359","name":"Maag Lever Darm Stichting","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/501100008359","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]},{"DOI":"10.13039\/100024145","name":"Olympus America Medical","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/100024145","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Surg Endosc"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,6]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is the most common complication of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD). Large differences exist in DGE rate between centers and it remains unclear to what extent these are associated with surgical technique. This study assessed differences in DGE rate after RPD and predictors for DGE, including gastrojejunostomy (GJ) technique.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Binational, multicenter retrospective cohort study including patients undergoing RPD from seven centers in the United States of America (USA) and the Netherlands (NL) (2011\u20132023). Data were retrospectively obtained from prospectively maintained databases. Multivariable analysis determined predictors for DGE, including GJ technique. Primary outcomes were DGE (ISGPS grade B\/C), primary DGE (i.e., no other abdominal complications), and secondary DGE.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Overall, 1,842 patients undergoing RPD were included (USA 1,342, NL 500). Conversion rate was 5.0%, median hospital stay 8\u00a0days (6\u201313), and in-hospital\/30-day mortality 1.5%. The rate of DGE grade B\/C was 14.8%, primary DGE 5.7% (relative 38.9%), and secondary DGE 9.0% (relative 61.1%). The rates of DGE grade B\/C (10.4% vs 26.8%, p\u2009&lt;\u20090.001) and secondary DGE (4.4% vs 21.7%, p\u2009&lt;\u20090.001) were lower in USA compared to NL, whereas the rate of primary DGE was comparable (6.0% vs 5.1%, p\u2009=\u20090.481). Overall, 1,259 (68.6%) GJs were sutured and 576 (31.4%) stapled. Sutured GJ was associated with a higher rate of DGE grade B\/C (adjusted risk 18% vs 9%, p\u2009&lt;\u20090.001) and primary DGE (adjusted risk 7% vs 3%, p\u2009&lt;\u20090.001) compared to stapled GJ.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>This binational multicenter study found that DGE following RPD is mostly secondary to other complications. The association of stapled GJ with lower DGE rates should be confirmed by randomized studies. The most effective strategy to reduce the rate of DGE after RPD would be to prevent the causal underlying complications, particularly POPF.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1007\/s00464-026-12727-3","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,30]],"date-time":"2026-03-30T16:23:06Z","timestamp":1774887786000},"page":"5176-5186","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Delayed gastric emptying after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy: the Transatlantic Robot Pancreas Consortium (TROPANC)"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"40","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-3398-6879","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Julia E.","family":"Menso","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Bram L. J.","family":"van den Broek","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Maurice J. W.","family":"Zwart","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Mahsoem","family":"Ali","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Brady","family":"Campbell","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Emile","family":"Farah","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Sarah","family":"Hays","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Geert","family":"Kazemier","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Aram E.","family":"Rojas","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Nikhil V.","family":"Tirukkovalur","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Jin","family":"He","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Melissa E.","family":"Hogg","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"I. Quintus","family":"Molenaar","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Alessandro","family":"Paniccia","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Patricio M.","family":"Polanco","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Amer H.","family":"Zureikat","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"suffix":"III","given":"Herbert J.","family":"Zeh","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Bas","family":"Groot Koerkamp","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Marc G.","family":"Besselink","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"name":"for the Transatlantic Robot Pancreas Consortium (TROPANC)","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,30]]},"reference":[{"issue":"3","key":"12727_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"215","DOI":"10.1016\/j.hpb.2017.01.023","volume":"19","author":"ML Kendrick","year":"2017","unstructured":"Kendrick ML, van Hilst J, Boggi U, de Rooij T, Walsh RM, Zeh HJ et al (2017) Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford) 19(3):215\u2013224","journal-title":"HPB (Oxford)"},{"issue":"1","key":"12727_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1097\/SLA.0000000000003590","volume":"271","author":"HJ Asbun","year":"2020","unstructured":"Asbun HJ, Moekotte AL, Vissers FL, Kunzler F, Cipriani F, Alseidi A et al (2020) The miami international evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection. Ann Surg 271(1):1\u201314","journal-title":"Ann Surg"},{"key":"12727_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"45","DOI":"10.1097\/SLA.0000000000006006","volume":"279","author":"M Abu Hilal","year":"2023","unstructured":"Abu Hilal M, van Ramshorst TME, Boggi U, Dokmak S, Edwin B, Keck T et al (2023) The Brescia internationally validated European guidelines on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (EGUMIPS). Ann Surg. 279:45","journal-title":"Ann Surg."},{"issue":"7","key":"12727_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3285","DOI":"10.21873\/anticanres.15817","volume":"42","author":"N Petrucciani","year":"2022","unstructured":"Petrucciani N, Crovetto A, Def F, Pace M, Giulitti D, Yusef M et al (2022) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: is minimally invasive surgery better than open? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anticancer Res 42(7):3285\u20133298","journal-title":"Anticancer Res"},{"issue":"12","key":"12727_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1001\/jamanetworkopen.2022.48147","volume":"5","author":"H Topal","year":"2022","unstructured":"Topal H, Aerts R, Laenen A, Collignon A, Jaekers J, Geers J et al (2022) Survival after minimally invasive vs open surgery for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. JAMA Netw Open 5(12):e2248147","journal-title":"JAMA Netw Open"},{"issue":"3","key":"12727_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"893","DOI":"10.1007\/s13304-020-00912-5","volume":"73","author":"W Zhang","year":"2021","unstructured":"Zhang W, Huang Z, Zhang J, Che X (2021) Safety and efficacy of robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of multiple worldwide centers. Updates Surg 73(3):893\u2013907","journal-title":"Updates Surg"},{"key":"12727_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3389\/fonc.2022.834382","volume":"12","author":"L Ouyang","year":"2022","unstructured":"Ouyang L, Zhang J, Feng Q, Zhang Z, Ma H, Zhang G (2022) Robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: an up-to-date system review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 12:834382","journal-title":"Front Oncol"},{"issue":"5","key":"12727_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"966","DOI":"10.1097\/SLA.0000000000003550","volume":"273","author":"AH Zureikat","year":"2021","unstructured":"Zureikat AH, Beane JD, Zenati MS, Al Abbas AI, Boone BA, Moser AJ et al (2021) 500 minimally invasive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies: one decade of optimizing performance. Ann Surg 273(5):966\u2013972","journal-title":"Ann Surg"},{"issue":"6","key":"12727_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e886","DOI":"10.1097\/SLA.0000000000004783","volume":"276","author":"MJW Zwart","year":"2022","unstructured":"Zwart MJW, Nota CLM, de Rooij T, van Hilst J, Te Riele WW, van Santvoort HC et al (2022) Outcomes of a multicenter training program in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-3). Ann Surg 276(6):e886\u2013e895","journal-title":"Ann Surg"},{"key":"12727_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e864","DOI":"10.1097\/SLA.0000000000005160","volume":"277","author":"Q Liu","year":"2021","unstructured":"Liu Q, Zhao Z, Zhang X, Wang W, Han B, Chen X et al (2021) Perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in low-risk surgical candidates: a multicenter propensity score-matched study. Ann Surg. 277:e864","journal-title":"Ann Surg."},{"issue":"2","key":"12727_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"356","DOI":"10.1097\/SLA.0000000000002850","volume":"271","author":"S Klompmaker","year":"2020","unstructured":"Klompmaker S, van Hilst J, Wellner UF, Busch OR, Coratti A, D\u2019Hondt M et al (2020) Outcomes after minimally-invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European propensity score matched study. Ann Surg 271(2):356\u2013363","journal-title":"Ann Surg"},{"key":"12727_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2659","DOI":"10.1007\/s00464-022-09735-4","volume":"37","author":"A Emmen","year":"2022","unstructured":"Emmen A, Gorgec B, Zwart MJW, Daams F, Erdmann J, Festen S et al (2022) Impact of shifting from laparoscopic to robotic surgery during 600 minimally invasive pancreatic and liver resections. Surg Endosc 37:2659","journal-title":"Surg Endosc"},{"issue":"2","key":"12727_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"396","DOI":"10.1016\/j.surg.2020.07.012","volume":"169","author":"TM Mackay","year":"2021","unstructured":"Mackay TM, Gleeson EM, Wellner UF, Williamsson C, Busch OR, Groot Koerkamp B et al (2021) Transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery in the United States of America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden: comparing design, variables, patients, treatment strategies, and outcomes. Surgery 169(2):396\u2013402","journal-title":"Surgery"},{"key":"12727_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.hpb.2025.07.452","author":"RM Montorsi","year":"2025","unstructured":"Montorsi RM, Strijbos BTM, Stommel MWJ, van Laarhoven K, Daams F, Busch OR et al (2025) Preventing and treating delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.hpb.2025.07.452","journal-title":"Ann Surg"},{"issue":"8","key":"12727_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"723","DOI":"10.1111\/hpb.12440","volume":"17","author":"TB Santema","year":"2015","unstructured":"Santema TB, Visser A, Busch OR, Dijkgraaf MG, Goslings JC, Gouma DJ et al (2015) Hospital costs of complications after a pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford) 17(8):723\u2013731","journal-title":"HPB (Oxford)"},{"issue":"5","key":"12727_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"761","DOI":"10.1016\/j.surg.2007.05.005","volume":"142","author":"MN Wente","year":"2007","unstructured":"Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142(5):761\u2013768","journal-title":"Surgery"},{"issue":"12","key":"12727_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1500","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijsu.2014.07.014","volume":"12","author":"JP Vandenbroucke","year":"2014","unstructured":"Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ et al (2014) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg 12(12):1500\u20131524","journal-title":"Int J Surg"},{"issue":"3","key":"12727_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"584","DOI":"10.1016\/j.surg.2016.11.014","volume":"161","author":"C Bassi","year":"2017","unstructured":"Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M et al (2017) The 2016 update of the international study group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161(3):584\u2013591","journal-title":"Surgery"},{"issue":"1","key":"12727_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"20","DOI":"10.1016\/j.surg.2007.02.001","volume":"142","author":"MN Wente","year":"2007","unstructured":"Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142(1):20\u201325","journal-title":"Surgery"},{"issue":"5","key":"12727_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"680","DOI":"10.1016\/j.surg.2010.12.002","volume":"149","author":"M Koch","year":"2011","unstructured":"Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R, Rahbari NN, Adam R, Capussotti L et al (2011) Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery 149(5):680\u2013688","journal-title":"Surgery"},{"issue":"10338","key":"12727_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1867","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(22)00182-9","volume":"399","author":"FJ Smits","year":"2022","unstructured":"Smits FJ, Henry AC, Besselink MG, Busch OR, van Eijck CH, Arntz M et al (2022) Algorithm-based care versus usual care for the early recognition and management of complications after pancreatic resection in the Netherlands: an open-label, nationwide, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 399(10338):1867\u20131875","journal-title":"Lancet"},{"issue":"5","key":"12727_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1248","DOI":"10.1016\/j.surg.2023.01.004","volume":"173","author":"JA Suurmeijer","year":"2023","unstructured":"Suurmeijer JA, Emmen AM, Bonsing BA, Busch OR, Daams F, van Eijck CH et al (2023) Nationwide validation of the ISGPS risk classification for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: \u201cLess is more.\u201d Surgery 173(5):1248\u20131253","journal-title":"Surgery"},{"key":"12727_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e1232","DOI":"10.1097\/SLA.0000000000005928","volume":"278","author":"MJW Zwart","year":"2023","unstructured":"Zwart MJW, van den Broek B, de Graaf N, Suurmeijer JA, Augustinus S, Te Riele WW et al (2023) The feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves in 635 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies following a multicenter training program: \u2019standing on the shoulders of giants. Ann Surg. 278:e1232","journal-title":"Ann Surg."},{"key":"12727_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Steyerberg EW (2019) Clinical prediction models: a practical approach to development, validation, and updating. Second edition. Springer Nature Swizterland","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-030-16399-0"},{"issue":"9","key":"12727_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.18637\/jss.v111.i09","volume":"111","author":"V Arel-Bundock","year":"2024","unstructured":"Arel-Bundock V, Greifer N, Heiss A (2024) How to interpret statistical models using marginaleffects for R and Python. J Stat Softw 111(9):1\u201332","journal-title":"J Stat Softw"},{"issue":"6","key":"12727_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e1232","DOI":"10.1097\/SLA.0000000000005928","volume":"278","author":"MJW Zwart","year":"2023","unstructured":"Zwart MJW, van den Broek B, de Graaf N, Suurmeijer JA, Augustinus S, Te Riele WW et al (2023) The feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves in 635 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies following a multicenter training program: \u201cstanding on the shoulders of giants.\u201d Ann Surg 278(6):e1232\u2013e1241","journal-title":"Ann Surg"},{"key":"12727_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.lanepe.2024.100864","volume":"39","author":"R Klotz","year":"2024","unstructured":"Klotz R, Mihaljevic AL, Kulu Y, Sander A, Klose C, Behnisch R et al (2024) Robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (EUROPA): a randomised controlled stage 2b trial. The Lancet Regional Health 39:100864","journal-title":"The Lancet Regional Health"},{"issue":"5","key":"12727_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"428","DOI":"10.1016\/S2468-1253(24)00005-0","volume":"9","author":"Q Liu","year":"2024","unstructured":"Liu Q, Li M, Gao Y, Jiang T, Han B, Zhao G et al (2024) Effect of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy on postoperative length of hospital stay and complications for pancreatic head or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 9(5):428\u2013437","journal-title":"Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol"},{"issue":"12","key":"12727_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"EVIDoa2500045","DOI":"10.1056\/EVIDoa2500045","volume":"4","author":"N de Graaf","year":"2025","unstructured":"de Graaf N, Emmen A, Ramera M, van Hilst J, Bjornsson B, Boggi U et al (2025) Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for resectable neoplasms. NEJM Evid. 4(12):EVIDoa2500045","journal-title":"NEJM Evid."},{"issue":"1","key":"12727_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1038\/s41598-022-26814-7","volume":"12","author":"SH Mao","year":"2022","unstructured":"Mao SH, Shyr BS, Chen SC, Wang SE, Shyr YM, Shyr BU (2022) Risk factors for delayed gastric emptying in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Sci Rep 12(1):22270","journal-title":"Sci Rep"},{"key":"12727_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e2571","DOI":"10.1002\/rcs.2571","volume":"20","author":"L Morelli","year":"2023","unstructured":"Morelli L, Di Franco G, Furbetta N, Palmeri M, Guadagni S, Gianardi D et al (2023) Delayed gastric emptying after pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy: comparison between traditional open surgery and full-robotic approach with da Vinci Xi. Int J Med Robot 20:e2571","journal-title":"Int J Med Robot"},{"issue":"5","key":"12727_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1240","DOI":"10.1016\/j.surg.2022.12.013","volume":"173","author":"G Marchegiani","year":"2023","unstructured":"Marchegiani G, Di Gioia A, Giuliani T, Lovo M, Vico E, Cereda M et al (2023) Delayed gastric emptying after pancreatoduodenectomy: one complication, two different entities. Surgery 173(5):1240\u20131247","journal-title":"Surgery"},{"issue":"7","key":"12727_CR33","first-page":"2096","volume":"109","author":"S Dai","year":"2023","unstructured":"Dai S, Peng Y, Wang G, Yin L, Yan H, Xi C et al (2023) Risk factors of delayed gastric emptying in patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 109(7):2096\u20132119","journal-title":"Int J Surg"},{"issue":"10","key":"12727_CR34","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"918","DOI":"10.1001\/jamasurg.2018.2089","volume":"153","author":"JP Jung","year":"2018","unstructured":"Jung JP, Zenati MS, Dhir M, Zureikat AH, Zeh HJ, Simmons RL et al (2018) Use of video review to investigate technical factors that may be associated with delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy. JAMA Surg 153(10):918\u2013927","journal-title":"JAMA Surg"},{"key":"12727_CR35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/bjsopen\/zraf123","author":"L Pietrogiovanna","year":"2025","unstructured":"Pietrogiovanna L, Probst P, BodegravenBalduzzi EAA, Kaiser J, Hackert T et al (2025) Use and management of routine prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. BJS Open. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/bjsopen\/zraf123","journal-title":"BJS Open"},{"issue":"4","key":"12727_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"605","DOI":"10.1097\/SLA.0000000000000460","volume":"259","author":"G Van Buren","year":"2014","unstructured":"Van Buren G, Bloomston M, Hughes SJ, Winter J, Behrman SW, Zyromski NJ et al (2014) A randomized prospective multicenter trial of pancreaticoduodenectomy with and without routine intraperitoneal drainage. Ann Surg 259(4):605\u2013612","journal-title":"Ann Surg"},{"issue":"8","key":"12727_CR37","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1273","DOI":"10.1097\/MPA.0000000000000415","volume":"44","author":"DM Walters","year":"2015","unstructured":"Walters DM, Shada AL, LaPar DJ, Adams RB, Bauer TW (2015) A long gastrojejunostomy is associated with decreased incidence and severity of delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Pancreas 44(8):1273\u20131279","journal-title":"Pancreas"},{"issue":"5","key":"12727_CR38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"654","DOI":"10.1016\/j.hpb.2021.09.015","volume":"24","author":"G Quero","year":"2022","unstructured":"Quero G, Menghi R, Fiorillo C, Laterza V, De Sio D, Schena CA et al (2022) The impact of gastrojejunostomy orientation on delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single center comparative analysis. HPB (Oxford) 24(5):654\u2013663","journal-title":"HPB (Oxford)"},{"key":"12727_CR39","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3390\/jcm12020732","author":"K Takagi","year":"2023","unstructured":"Takagi K, Umeda Y, Yoshida R, Fuji T, Yasui K, Kimura J et al (2023) Surgical techniques of gastrojejunostomy in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: robot-sewn versus stapled gastrojejunostomy anastomosis. J Clin Med. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/jcm12020732","journal-title":"J Clin Med"},{"issue":"1","key":"12727_CR40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"84","DOI":"10.14701\/ahbps.2021.25.1.84","volume":"25","author":"SH Lee","year":"2021","unstructured":"Lee SH, Lee YH, Hur YH, Kim HJ, Choi BG (2021) A comparative study of postoperative outcomes after stapled versus handsewn gastrojejunal anastomosis for pylorus-resecting pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Surg 25(1):84\u201389","journal-title":"Ann Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Surg"},{"issue":"4","key":"12727_CR41","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1140","DOI":"10.1016\/j.surg.2023.12.001","volume":"175","author":"Z Fu","year":"2024","unstructured":"Fu Z, Gao S, Wu X, Qin J, Dang Z, Wang H et al (2024) Hand-sewn gastrojejunal anastomosis reduces delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-center retrospective clinical study of 1,077 consecutive patients. Surgery 175(4):1140\u20131146","journal-title":"Surgery"},{"issue":"8","key":"12727_CR42","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1007","DOI":"10.1007\/s00595-017-1504-z","volume":"47","author":"Y Murata","year":"2017","unstructured":"Murata Y, Tanemura A, Kato H, Kuriyama N, Azumi Y, Kishiwada M et al (2017) Superiority of stapled side-to-side gastrojejunostomy over conventional hand-sewn end-to-side gastrojejunostomy for reducing the risk of primary delayed gastric emptying after subtotal stomach-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Today 47(8):1007\u20131017","journal-title":"Surg Today"},{"issue":"3","key":"12727_CR43","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"495","DOI":"10.1097\/SLA.0b013e31820d98f1","volume":"253","author":"M Kawai","year":"2011","unstructured":"Kawai M, Tani M, Hirono S, Miyazawa M, Shimizu A, Uchiyama K et al (2011) Pylorus ring resection reduces delayed gastric emptying in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial of pylorus-resecting versus pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 253(3):495\u2013501","journal-title":"Ann Surg"},{"issue":"6","key":"12727_CR44","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1021","DOI":"10.1097\/SLA.0000000000002480","volume":"267","author":"T Hackert","year":"2018","unstructured":"Hackert T, Probst P, Knebel P, Doerr-Harim C, Bruckner T, Klaiber U et al (2018) Pylorus resection does not reduce delayed gastric emptying after partial pancreatoduodenectomy: a blinded randomized controlled trial (PROPP Study, DRKS00004191). Ann Surg 267(6):1021\u20131027","journal-title":"Ann Surg"},{"issue":"7","key":"12727_CR45","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"690","DOI":"10.1002\/jso.23566","volume":"109","author":"I Matsumoto","year":"2014","unstructured":"Matsumoto I, Shinzeki M, Asari S, Goto T, Shirakawa S, Ajiki T et al (2014) A prospective randomized comparison between pylorus- and subtotal stomach-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy on postoperative delayed gastric emptying occurrence and long-term nutritional status. J Surg Oncol 109(7):690\u2013696","journal-title":"J Surg Oncol"},{"issue":"3","key":"12727_CR46","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"316","DOI":"10.1097\/01.sla.0000201479.84934.ca","volume":"243","author":"M Tani","year":"2006","unstructured":"Tani M, Terasawa H, Kawai M, Ina S, Hirono S, Uchiyama K et al (2006) Improvement of delayed gastric emptying in pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Surg 243(3):316\u2013320","journal-title":"Ann Surg"},{"issue":"6","key":"12727_CR47","first-page":"935","volume":"274","author":"H Toyama","year":"2021","unstructured":"Toyama H, Matsumoto I, Mizumoto T, Fujita H, Tsuchida S, Kanbara Y et al (2021) Influence of the retrocolic versus antecolic route for alimentary tract reconstruction on delayed gastric emptying after pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicenter. Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial Ann Surg 274(6):935\u2013944","journal-title":"Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial Ann Surg"},{"issue":"1","key":"12727_CR48","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"45","DOI":"10.1097\/SLA.0b013e3182a6f529","volume":"259","author":"WJ Eshuis","year":"2014","unstructured":"Eshuis WJ, van Eijck CH, Gerhards MF, Coene PP, de Hingh IH, Karsten TM et al (2014) Antecolic versus retrocolic route of the gastroenteric anastomosis after pancreatoduodenectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 259(1):45\u201351","journal-title":"Ann Surg"},{"issue":"5","key":"12727_CR49","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"843","DOI":"10.1007\/s11605-011-1480-3","volume":"15","author":"R Gangavatiker","year":"2011","unstructured":"Gangavatiker R, Pal S, Javed A, Dash NR, Sahni P, Chattopadhyay TK (2011) Effect of antecolic or retrocolic reconstruction of the gastro\/duodenojejunostomy on delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Gastrointest Surg 15(5):843\u2013852","journal-title":"J Gastrointest Surg"},{"issue":"2","key":"12727_CR50","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"465","DOI":"10.1007\/s00268-013-2274-4","volume":"38","author":"D Tamandl","year":"2014","unstructured":"Tamandl D, Sahora K, Prucker J, Schmid R, Holst JJ, Miholic J et al (2014) Impact of the reconstruction method on delayed gastric emptying after pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective randomized study. World J Surg 38(2):465\u2013475","journal-title":"World J Surg"},{"issue":"4","key":"12727_CR51","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"718","DOI":"10.1097\/SLA.0000000000002570","volume":"269","author":"JD Beane","year":"2019","unstructured":"Beane JD, House MG, Ceppa EP, Dolejs SC, Pitt HA (2019) Variation in drain management after pancreatoduodenectomy: early versus delayed removal. Ann Surg 269(4):718\u2013724","journal-title":"Ann Surg"},{"key":"12727_CR52","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.soi.2024.100090","author":"K Verhoeff","year":"2024","unstructured":"Verhoeff K (2024) Laparoscopic versus robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a NSQIP analysis comparing trends in patient selection and outcomes over 5-years. Surgical Oncol Insight. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.soi.2024.100090","journal-title":"Surgical Oncol Insight"},{"issue":"4","key":"12727_CR53","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2226","DOI":"10.1097\/JS9.0000000000001121","volume":"110","author":"A Emmen","year":"2024","unstructured":"Emmen A, de Graaf N, Khatkov IE, Busch OR, Dokmak S, Boggi U et al (2024) Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe: a registry-based retrospective study - a critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry. Int J Surg 110(4):2226\u20132233","journal-title":"Int J Surg"},{"key":"12727_CR54","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/SLA.0000000000006473","author":"TE Hendriks","year":"2024","unstructured":"Hendriks TE, Balduzzi A, van Dieren S, Suurmeijer JA, Salvia R, Stoop TF et al (2024) Interobserver variability in the International Study Group for Pancreas Surgery (ISGPS)-defined complications after pancreatoduodenectomy: an international cross-sectional multicenter study. Ann Surg. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/SLA.0000000000006473","journal-title":"Ann Surg"},{"issue":"7","key":"12727_CR55","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2056","DOI":"10.1007\/s00268-020-05462-w","volume":"44","author":"E Melloul","year":"2020","unstructured":"Melloul E, Lassen K, Roulin D, Grass F, Perinel J, Adham M et al (2020) Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreatoduodenectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) recommendations 2019. World J Surg 44(7):2056\u20132084","journal-title":"World J Surg"}],"container-title":["Surgical Endoscopy"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00464-026-12727-3.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s00464-026-12727-3","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00464-026-12727-3.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,8]],"date-time":"2026-06-08T15:03:17Z","timestamp":1780930997000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s00464-026-12727-3"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,30]]},"references-count":55,"journal-issue":{"issue":"6","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,6]]}},"alternative-id":["12727"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00464-026-12727-3","relation":{},"ISSN":["0930-2794","1432-2218"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0930-2794","type":"print"},{"value":"1432-2218","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,30]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2 December 2025","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"28 February 2026","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"30 March 2026","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"This study did not receive funding. J.E. Menso and M.G. Besselink received a private donation and funding from Intuitive Foundation (Sunnyvale, CA) and KWF Dutch Cancer Society for the investigator-initiated DIPLOMA-2\u2009\u00d7\u20092 randomized trial on the oncological outcomes after robot-assisted versus open pancreatoduodenectomy. M.G. Besselink received funding from Intuitive Surgical Inc. (Sunnyvale, CA) for the investigator-initiated DIPLOMA-2 randomized trial. M.J.W. Zwart and M.G. Besselink received funding from Amsterdam UMC, the Dutch Digestive Foundation (\u2018Maag Lever Darm Stichting\u2019), and Intuitive Surgical Inc. (Sunnyvale, CA) for studies on safe implementation of robot-assisted pancreatic surgery, including the investigator-initiated LAELAPS-3 and LEARNBOT training programs for RPD in the Netherlands and Europe, respectively. M.E. Hogg received funding from Intuitive Surgical Inc. (Sunnyvale, CA) for robot-assisted pancreatic surgery training and Olympus Medical (Japan) for consultation of pancreatic cancer detection. H.J. Zeh is on the Scientific Advisory Board of Surgical Safety Technologies Inc. (New York, NY). M.G. Besselink and I.Q. Molenaar are proctors for Intuitive Surgical Inc. (Sunnyvale, CA). B.L.J. van den Broek, M. Ali, B. Campbell, E. Farah, S. Hays, G. Kazemier, A.E. Rojas, N.V. Tirukkovalur, J. He, A. Paniccia, P.M. Polanco, A.H. Zureikat, and B. Groot Koerkamp have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Disclosures"}}]}}