Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26052515›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in surgery2015

Pioneering Robotic Liver Surgery in Germany: First Experiences with Liver Malignancies.

Roland S Croner, Aristotelis Perrakis, Maximillian Brunner, Klaus E Matzel, Werner Hohenberger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Robotic approach to hepatobiliary surgery.Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2017
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. [Robotic approach to hepatobiliary surgery. German version].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2016
    Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Roland S CronerDepartment of Surgery and Liver Center, University Hospital Erlangen , Erlangen , Germany.
Aristotelis PerrakisDepartment of Surgery and Liver Center, University Hospital Erlangen , Erlangen , Germany.
Maximillian BrunnerDepartment of Surgery and Liver Center, University Hospital Erlangen , Erlangen , Germany.
Klaus E MatzelDepartment of Surgery and Liver Center, University Hospital Erlangen , Erlangen , Germany.
Werner HohenbergerDepartment of Surgery and Liver Center, University Hospital Erlangen , Erlangen , Germany.
Universitätsklinikum Erlangen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimally invasive liver surgery is growing worldwide with obvious benefits for the treated patients. These procedures maybe improved by robotic techniques, which add several innovative features. In Germany, we were the first surgical department implementing robotic assisted minimally invasive liver resections. MATERIAL AND

methodsBetween June 2013 and March 2015, we performed robotic based minimally invasive liver resections in nine patients with malignant liver disease. Five off these patients suffered from primary and four from secondary liver malignancies. We retrospectively analyzed the perioperative variables of these patients and the oncological follow up.

resultsMean age of the patients was 63 years (range 45-71). One patient suffered from intrahepatic cholangiocellular, four from hepatocellular carcinoma, and four patients from colorectal liver metastases. In six patients, left lateral liver resection, in two cases single segment resection, and in one case minimally invasive guided liver ablation were performed. Five patients underwent previous abdominal surgery. Mean operation time was 312 min (range 115-458 min). Mean weight of the liver specimens was 182 g (range 62-260 g) and mean estimated blood loss was 251 ml (range 10-650 ml). The mean tumor size was 4.4 cm (range 3.5-5.5 cm). In all cases, R0 status was confirmed with a mean margin of 0.6 cm (range 0.1-1.5 cm). One patient developed small bowel fistula on postoperative day 5, which could be treated conservatively. No patient died. Mean hospital stay of the patients was 6 days (range 3-10 days). During a mean follow up of 12 months (range 1-21 months), two patients developed tumor recurrence.

conclusionRobotic-based liver surgery is feasible in patients with primary and secondary liver malignancies. To achieve perioperative parameters comparable to open settings, the learning curve must be passed. Minor liver resections are good candidates to start this technique. But the huge benefits of robotic-based liver resections should be expected in extended procedures beyond minor liver resections with the currently available technology.

Indexed as

colorectal cancerHCCliver malignancyliver resectionminimally invasiverobotic

Identifiers

PMID26052515
PMCPMC4440394
OpenAlexW1526385529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.