Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BackgroundMost studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC).MethodsA systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015–12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS).ResultsOverall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group.ConclusionsThis individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately.Protocol registrationPROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.

To compare perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). LPD is used more commonly, but this surge is mostly based on observational data. We searched CENTRAL, Medline and Web of Science for RCTs comparing minimally invasive to OPD for adults with benign or malignant disease requiring elective pancreaticoduodenectomy. Main outcomes were 90-day mortality, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), bile leak, blood loss, reoperation, readmission, oncologic outcomes (R0-resection, lymph nodes harvested), and operative times. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Tool and the GRADE approach (Prospero registration ID: CRD42019120363). Three RCTs with a total of 224 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed there were no significant differences regarding 90-day mortality, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, LOS, POPF, DGE, PPH, bile leak, reoperation, readmission, or oncologic outcomes between LPD and OPD. Operative times were significantly longer for LPD {MD [95% confidence interval (CI)] 95.44 minutes (24.06-166.81 minutes)}, whereas blood loss was lower for LPD [MD (CI) -150.99 mL (-168.54 to -133.44 mL)]. Certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. At current level of evidence, LPD shows no advantage over OPD. Limitations include high risk of bias and moderate to very low certainty of evidence. Further studies should focus on patient safety during LPD learning curves and the potential role of robotic surgery.

Portal-mesenteric vein resection (PMVR) is often necessary for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with vascular invasion. While open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) is the standard approach, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) offers a minimally invasive alternative with potential benefits but faces challenges related to technical complexity and safety. This meta-analysis compares perioperative outcomes of RPD with PMVR versus OPD with PMVR in PDAC. A search of PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials identified observational studies published from January 2010 to September 2024. Studies included compared RPD and OPD with PMVR in PDAC, reporting 30-day mortality, major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification), and complications such as postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH). Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. Four studies involving 288 patients met inclusion criteria (RPD + PMVR: n = 69; OPD + PMVR: n = 219). Thirty-day mortality (6.3% vs 5.6%, OR: 1.29, 95% CI 0.41-4.03, p = 0.66, I2 = 0%), major complications (14.5% vs 21%, OR: 0.66, 95%CI 0.32-1.39, p = 0.27, I2 = 0%), PPH (19% vs 8.9%, OR: 2.44, 95%CI 0.52-11.5, p = 0.26, I2 = 45%), POPF (4.8% vs 7.04%, OR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.25-2.94, p = 0.82, I2 = 0%), and DGE (23.8% vs 14.6%, OR: 1.81, 95% CI 0.88-3.72, p = 0.11, I2 = 0%) were comparable between the RPD + PMVR and OPD + PMVR groups. However, RPD + PMVR was associated with a significantly shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (mean difference: -4.76 days, 95% CI -7.85 to -1.67, p = 0.003, I2 = 34%). RPD + PMVR is comparable to OPD + PMVR in terms of safety and efficacy, with the added benefit of reduced hospital LOS.

To compare perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using data from large-scale retrospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the last 10 years. A meta-analysis to assess the safety and feasibility of LDP and OPD registered with PROSPERO: (CRD42020218080) was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing LPD with OPD published between January 2010 and October 2020 were included; only clinical studies reporting more than 30 cases for each operation were included. Two authors performed data extraction and quality assessment independently. The primary endpoint was operative times, blood loss, and 90 days mortality. Secondary endpoints included reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and oncologic outcomes (R0-resection, lymph node dissection). Overall, the final analysis included 15 retrospective cohorts and 3 RCTs comprising 12,495 patients (2,037 and 10,458 patients underwent LPD and OPD). It seems OPD has more lymph nodes harvested but no significant differences [weighted mean difference (WMD): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.02 to 2.14; P=0.05]. Nevertheless, compared with OPD, LPD was associated with a higher R0 resection rate [odds ratio (OR): 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10-1.44; P=0.0008] and longer operative time (WMD: 89.80 min; 95% CI: 63.75-115.84; P<0.00001), patients might benefit from lower rate of wound infection (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.33-0.59; P<0.0001), much less blood loss (WMD: -212.25 mL; 95% CI: -286.15 to -138.14; P<0.00001) and lower blood transfusion rate (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.43-0.77; P=0.0002) and shorter LOS (WMD: -1.63 day; 95% CI: -2.73 to -0.51; P=0.004). No significant differences in 90-day mortality, overall morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, reoperation, POPF, DGE and PPH between LPD and OPD. Our study suggests that after learning curve, LPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD as it provides similar perioperative and acceptable oncological outcomes when compared with OPD.

Background: Few studies have compared perioperative and oncological outcomes between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: A retrospective review of patients undergoing MIPD and OPD for PDAC from January 2011 to December 2017 was performed. Perioperative, oncological, and survival outcomes were analyzed before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Results: Data from 1048 patients were evaluated (76 MIPD, 972 OPD). After PSM, 73 patients undergoing MIPD were matched with 219 patients undergoing OPD. Operation times were longer for MIPD than OPD (392 vs. 327 min, p < 0.001). Postoperative hospital stays were shorter for MIPD patients than OPD patients (12.4 vs. 14.2 days, p = 0.040). The rate of overall complications and postoperative pancreatic fistula did not differ between the two groups. Adjuvant treatment rates were higher following MIPD (80.8% vs. 59.8%, p = 0.002). With the exception of perineural invasion, no differences were seen between the two groups in pathological outcomes. The median overall survival and disease-free survival rates did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: MIPD showed shorter postoperative hospital stays and comparable perioperative and oncological outcomes to OPD for selected PDAC patients. Future randomized studies will be required to validate these findings.

This study aimed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes after minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA). A dCCA might be a good indication for MIPD, as it is often diagnosed as primary resectable disease. However, multicenter series on MIPD for dCCA are lacking. This is an international multicenter propensity score-matched cohort study including patients after MIPD or OPD for dCCA in 8 centers from 5 countries (2010-2021). Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free interval (DFI). Secondary outcomes included perioperative and postoperative complications and predictors for OS or DFI. Subgroup analyses included robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD). Overall, 478 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA were included of which 97 after MIPD (37 RPD, 60 LPD) and 381 after OPD. MIPD was associated with less blood loss (300 vs 420mL, P =0.025), longer operation time (453 vs 340min; P <0.001), and less surgical site infections (7.8% vs 19.3%; P =0.042) compared with OPD. The median OS (30 vs 25mo) and DFI (29 vs 18) for MIPD did not differ significantly between MIPD and OPD. Tumor stage (Hazard ratio: 2.939, P <0.001) and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (Hazard ratio: 0.640, P =0.033) were individual predictors for OS. RPD was associated with a higher lymph node yield (18.0 vs 13.5; P =0.008) and less major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3b-5; 8.1% vs 32.1%; P =0.005) compared with LPD. Both surgical and oncological outcomes of MIPD for dCCA are acceptable as compared with OPD. Surgical outcomes seem to favor RPD as compared with LPD but more data are needed. Randomized controlled trials should be performed to confirm these findings.

Background: Although laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a safe and feasible treatment compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), surgeons need a relatively long training time to become technically proficient in this complex procedure. In addition, the incidence of complications and mortality of LPD will be significantly higher than that of OPD in the initial stage. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and overall effect of LPD to OPD after learning curve based on eligible large-scale retrospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially the difference in the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes.Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before March 2021. Only clinical studies reporting more than 40 cases for LPD were included. Data on operative times, blood loss, and 90-day mortality, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall morbidity, Clavien–Dindo ≥III complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and oncologic outcomes (R0 resection, lymph node dissection, positive lymph node numbers, and tumor size) were subjected to meta-analysis.Results: Overall, the final analysis included 13 retrospective cohorts and one RCT comprising 2,702 patients (LPD: 1,040, OPD: 1,662). It seems that LPD has longer operative time (weighted mean difference (WMD): 74.07; 95% CI: 39.87–108.26; p < 0.0001). However, compared with OPD, LPD was associated with a higher R0 resection rate (odds ratio (OR): 1.43; 95% CI: 1.10–1.85; p = 0.008), lower rate of wound infection (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.22–0.56; p < 0.0001), less blood loss (WMD: −197.54 ml; 95% CI −251.39 to −143.70; p < 0.00001), lower blood transfusion rate (OR: 0.58; 95% CI 0.43–0.78; p = 0.0004), and shorter LOS (WMD: −2.30 day; 95% CI −3.27 to −1.32; p < 0.00001). No significant differences were found in 90-day mortality, overall morbidity, Clavien–Dindo ≥ III complications, reoperation, POPF, DGE, PPH, lymph node dissection, positive lymph node numbers, and tumor size between LPD and OPD.Conclusion: Comparative studies indicate that after the learning curve, LPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD. In addition, LPD provides less blood loss, blood transfusion, wound infection, and shorter hospital stays when compared with OPD.

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.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is being increasingly performed as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in selected patients. Our study aimed to present a meta-analysis of the high-quality studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD performed for pancreatic head and periampullary diseases. A systematic review of the available literature was performed to identify those studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD. Here, all randomized controlled trials identified were included, while the selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies were based on a validated tool (i.e., Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies). Intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, oncologic clearance, and postoperative complications were also evaluated. Sixteen studies matched the selection criteria, including a total of 3168 patients (32.1% MIPD, 67.9% OPD). The pooled data showed that MIPD was associated with a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 80.89 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.74-122.05, P < .01), less blood loss (WMD = -227.62 mL, 95% CI: -305.48 to -149.75, P < .01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -4.68 days, 95% CI: -5.52 to -3.84, P < .01), and an increase in retrieved lymph nodes (WMD = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.33-2.37, P < .01). Furthermore, the overall morbidity was significantly lower in the MIPD group (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54-0.82, P < .01), as were total postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99, P = .04), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.96, P = .02), and wound infection (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39-0.79, P < .01). However, there were no statistically significant differences observed in major complications, clinically significant POPFs, reoperation rate, and mortality. Our study suggests that MIPD is a safe alternative to OPD, as it is associated with less blood loss and better postoperative recovery in terms of the overall postoperative complications as well as POPF, DGE, and wound infection. Methodologic high-quality comparative studies are required for further evaluation.

To determine the incidence of post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) following robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) at high-volume US centers with experienced surgeons, and identify risk factors. Recent randomized trials report variable PPH rates following RPD. As RPD utilization increases, understanding PPH risk is critical. A retrospective cohort study across four high-volume robotic pancreas programs from 2007 to 2024, including all patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) or RPD. Primary outcome was PPH. Secondary outcomes included post-operative complications, length of stay, readmissions, 30- and 90-day mortality. Univariable and multivariable analysis (MVA) identified factors associated with PPH, post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF), and mortality. Among 1925 patients (61.1% OPD, 38.9% RPD), OPD patients had lower BMI (P=0.0004) and larger tumors (P=0.0029). The RPD conversion rate was 8.8%. Despite a higher proportion of soft glands (38.9% vs. 33.1%, P<0.0001), RPD had less POPF (4.8% vs 9.3%, P=0.0003). OPD had worse post-operative outcomes but no difference in mortality. Rate, location, and severity of PPH did not differ by approach. On MVA, RPD was associated with decreased POPF risk (OR 0.44, P<0.0001), but increased PPH risk (OR 1.63, P=0.017). POPF was associated with increased PPH risk (OR 3.97, P<0.0001). Among patients with POPF, RPD remained associated with increased PPH risk (OR 3.15, P=0.0269). RPD reduces the risk of POPF, but may confer greater PPH risk, particularly in patients who develop POPF after RPD. These findings underscore the need for further investigation in the development of POPF after RPD.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials

Postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) are the biggest contributor to surgical morbidity and mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy. The impact of POPF could be influenced by the surgical approach. To assess the clinical impact of POPF in patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). This cohort study was conducted from 2007 to 2020 in 36 referral centers in Europe, South America, and Asia. Participants were patients with POPF (grade B/C as defined by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery [ISGPS]) after MIPD and OPD (MIPD-POPF, OPD-POPF). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio based on the variables age (continuous), sex, body mass index (continuous), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (dichotomous), vascular involvement, neoadjuvant therapy, tumor size, malignancy, and POPF grade C. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2023. MIPD and OPD. The primary outcome was the presence of a second clinically relevant (ISGPS grade B/C) complication (postpancreatic hemorrhage [PPH], delayed gastric emptying [DGE], bile leak, and chyle leak) besides POPF. Overall, 1130 patients with POPF were included (558 MIPD and 572 OPD), of whom 336 patients after MIPD were matched to 336 patients after OPD. The median (IQR) age was 65 (58-73) years; there were 703 males (62.2%) and 427 females (37.8%). Among patients who had MIPD-POPF, 129 patients (55%) experienced a second complication compared with 95 patients (36%) with OPD-POPF (P < .001). The rate of PPH was higher with MIPD-POPF (71 patients [21%] vs 22 patients [8.0%]; P < .001), without significant differences for DGE (65 patients [19%] vs 45 patients [16%]; P = .40), bile leak (43 patients [13%] vs 52 patients [19%]; P = .06), and chyle leak (1 patient [0.5%] vs 5 patients [1.9%]; P = .39). MIPD-POPF was associated with a longer hospital stay (median [IQR], 27 [18-38] days vs 22 [15-30] days; P < .001) and more reoperations (67 patients [21%] vs 21 patients [7%]; P < .001) but comparable in-hospital/30-day mortality (25 patients [7%] vs 7 patients [5%]; P = .31) with OPD-POPF, respectively. This study found that for patients after MIPD, the presence of POPF is more frequently associated with other clinically relevant complications compared with OPD. This underscores the importance of perioperative mitigation strategies for POPF and the resulting PPH in high-risk patients.

BackgroundTo date, the evidence on the safety and benefits of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) in elderly patients is still controversy. This study aim to compare the risk and benefit between MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in elderly patients.MethodsFrom 2016 to 2020, we retrospective enrolled 26 patients underwent MIPD and other 119 patients underwent OPD. We firstly compared the baseline characteristics, 90-day mortality and short-term surgical outcomes of MIPD and OPD. Propensity score matching was applied for old age patient (≥ 65-year-old vs. < 65-year-old) for detail safety and feasibility analysis.ResultsPatients received MIPD is significantly older, had poor performance status, less lymph node harvest, longer operation time, less postoperative hospital stay (POHS) and earlier drain removal. After 1:2 propensity score matching analysis, elderly patients in MIPD group had significantly poor performance status (P = 0.042) compared to OPD group. Patients receiving MIPD had significantly shorter POHS (18 vs. 25 days, P = 0.028), earlier drain removal (16 vs. 21 days, P = 0.012) and smaller delay gastric empty rate (5.9 vs. 32.4% P = 0.036). There was no 90-day mortality (0% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.186) and pulmonary complications (0% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.075) in MIPD group, and the major complication rate is comparable to OPD group (17.6% vs. 29.4%, P = 0.290).ConclusionFor elderly patients, MIPD is a feasible and safe option even in patients with inferior preoperative performance status. MIPD might also provide potential advantage for elderly patients in minimizing pulmonary complication and overall mortality over OPD.

The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remain controversial. This study evaluated the surgical and oncological outcomes of MIPD versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) after overcoming the MIPD learning curve. Between April 2014 and July 2022, 357 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for resectable (RPC) or borderline resectable (BRPC) PDAC. After excluding early-phase MIPD cases, 112 patients underwent MIPD and 245 underwent OPD. Propensity score matching was performed. Subgroup analysis assessed outcomes in patients undergoing PD without vascular resection (type 0). MIPD was associated with longer operation time (p = 0.002), but similar estimated blood loss and intraoperative transfusion volumes. Rates of clinically relevant postoperative fistula and delayed gastric emptying were comparable. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly between MIPD and OPD groups (p = 0.670 and p = 0.179, respectively). In type 0 resections, OS was equivalent, but DFS was significantly better in the MIPD group. MIPD is a safe and feasible option for RPC and BRPC PDAC, with oncologic outcomes comparable to OPD. Type 0 tumors, not requiring vascular resection, may represent an optimal indication for MIPD.

Postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Pancreatogastrostomy (PG) and pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) are the two most commonly used reconstruction techniques, yet evidence favoring one over the other is inconclusive. This study evaluates postoperative outcomes following open PD at a single institution that transitioned from PG to PJ as the preferred reconstruction method. This retrospective comparative study included patients who underwent PD between April 2005 and August 2022. Of 757 patients identified, 522 met the inclusion criteria. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to adjust for clinically relevant covariates. Primary endpoints were clinically relevant (CR) POPF (grade B/C) and Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade ≥ 3 POPFs. Secondary outcomes included post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), systemic complications, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Overall, CR-POPF and CD grade ≥ 3 POPFs occurred in 21.3% and 8.0% of patients, respectively. Thirty-day and in-hospital mortality rates were 3.1% and 4.2%. After PSM, 368 patients (184 PG and 184 PJ) were analyzed. Grade B POPFs were more frequent following PJ than PG (24.5% vs. 15.8%, p < 0.001). Although CR-POPF and CD grade ≥ 3 POPFs were numerically higher in the PJ group, differences were not statistically significant. In contrast, DGE, PPH, and in-hospital mortality were significantly higher following PG (37.0% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.025; 16.3% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.025; and 7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.049, respectively). PG was associated with a lower incidence of grade B POPFs but higher rates of DGE, PPH, and in-hospital mortality.