SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2016
A systematic review of robotic-assisted liver resection and meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic neoplasms.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
52 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for difficult posterosuperior segments: a systematic review with a meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis: an umbrella review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus robotic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Pooled it
- Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: A meta-analysis.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation versus minimally invasive liver surgery for small hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Pooled it
- Comparison between robotic and open liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes.Updates in surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Scientific growth and research impact in robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: evidence from almost 1,000 publications and top- 100 most cited literature.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a propensity score-matched analysis adjusted for surgical difficulty.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Nationwide implementation of minimally invasive liver surgery: population-based analysis.BJS open · 2025Article
- Learning curve analysis of 100 consecutive robotic liver resections.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Early outcomes of single-port robotic left lateral sectionectomy in patients with hepatic tumor.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2024Article
- Robotic major and minor hepatectomy: critical appraisal of learning curve and its impact on outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- The technique of laparoscopic and robotic extended cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2023Article
- Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis.Cancers · 2023Review
- Minimally invasive mesohepatectomy for centrally located liver lesions-a case series.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Short-term outcomes of da Vinci Xi versus Si robotic systems for minor hepatectomies.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted liver resection (RALR) was introduced as procedures of overcoming the limitations of traditional laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). The aim of this review was to evaluate the surgical results of RALR from all published studies and the results of comparative studies of RALR versus LLR for hepatic neoplasm.
methodsEligible studies involved RALR that published between January 2001 and December 2014 were reviewed systematically. Comparisons between RALS and LLR were pooled and analyzed by meta-analytical techniques using random- or fixed-effects models, as appropriate.
resultsIn total, 29 studies, involving 537 patients undergoing RALR, were identified. The most common RALR procedure was a wedge resection and segmentectomy (28.67%), followed by right hepatectomy (17.88%), left lateral sectionectomy (13.22%), and bisegmentectomy (9.12%). The conversion and complication rates were 5.59 and 11.36%, respectively. The most common reasons for conversion were bleeding (46.67%) and unclear tumor margin (33.33%). Intracavitary fluid collections and bile leaks (40.98%) were the most frequently occurring morbidities. Nine studies, involving 774 patients, were included in meta-analysis. RALR had a longer operative time compared with LLR [mean difference (MD) 48.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 22.49-74.49 min; p = 0.0003]. There were no significant differences between the two groups in blood loss [MD 31.53; 95% CI -14.74 to 77.79 mL; p = 0.18], hospital stay [MD 0.13; 95% CI -0.54 to 0.80 days; p = 0.18], postoperative overall morbidity [odds ratio (OR) 0.76; 95% CI 0.49-1.19; p = 0.23], and surgical margin status (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.33-1.12; p = 0.11); cost was greater than robotic surgery (p = 0.001).
conclusionRALR and LLR display similar safety, feasibility, and effectiveness for hepatectomies, but further studies are needed before any final conclusion can be drawn, especially in terms of oncologic and cost-effectiveness outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.