Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Distal Cholangiocarcinoma: An Updated Disease-Specific Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background/Objectives: Distal cholangiocarcinoma is a rare biliary tract cancer typically treated with pancreaticoduodenectomy. Comparative evidence specifically addressing minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for this disease remains scarce. Methods: We conducted an updated systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis of comparative studies limited to distal cholangiocarcinoma. Binary outcomes were summarized as odds ratios, continuous outcomes as mean differences, and overall survival as hazard ratios. The primary survival analysis included only directly reported hazard ratios from prespecified matched or weighted cohorts; hazard ratios reconstructed from Kaplan–Meier curves were examined only in sensitivity analyses. Results: Six retrospective comparative studies involving 1623 patients met the inclusion criteria. Minimally invasive surgery was associated with lower blood loss (mean difference, −104.93 mL; 95% CI, −145.30 to −64.57; I2 = 16.3%). No clear differences were found in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.25), major morbidity (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.43), or R0 resection (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.56). In the primary overall survival analysis based on directly reported hazard ratios, the pooled hazard ratio was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.57 to 1.52; I2 = 1.3%). In the sensitivity analysis incorporating eligible reconstructed hazard ratios, the pooled hazard ratio was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). In an exploratory recurrence-related survival family analysis based on directly reported estimates, the pooled hazard ratio was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.07; I2 = 0.0%). Conclusions: Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy may reduce blood loss without clear evidence of worse major postoperative or oncologic outcomes in distal cholangiocarcinoma. However, the available evidence is entirely observational and should be interpreted with caution.