Comparative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Distal Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Pancreatoduodenectomy, the primary surgical strategy for managing cholangiocarcinoma, is executed via two distinct methodologies, namely minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). The selection between these surgical options is critical, as it directly influences patient outcomes, encompassing both short-term recovery metrics and long-term survival rates. Despite the clinical significance of these procedures, there exists a notable void in the literature regarding a comprehensive comparison of MIPD and OPD, particularly in assessing their respective efficacies and complications. This lack of detailed comparative analysis has left a gap in evidence-based guidance for clinicians faced with the decision of choosing the most appropriate surgical approach for their patients. The absence of robust data comparing the two techniques underscores the necessity for a meta-analysis that rigorously examines and contrasts the outcomes associated with MIPD and OPD. By drawing upon a wide array of international studies, this research aims to shed light on the advantages and potential drawbacks of each method, thereby providing a more informed basis for surgical decision-making in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma.