ArticleWorld journal of surgery2016
Robotic Liver Resection For Primary Hepatolithiasis: Is It Beneficial?
Article in World journal of surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic hepatectomy for benign liver disease: single-centre consecutive series and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive and open approaches.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Short-Term Outcomes After Robotic Versus Open Liver Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2023Pooled it
- State of the art in robotic liver surgery: a meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison between robotic and open liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes.Updates in surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Evolution of surgical treatment for hepatolithiasis.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Review
- International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections for hepatolithiasis: an international multicenter propensity score matched analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: application of the difficulty scoring system.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for complex hepatolithiasis: a propensity score matching analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Article
- International consensus statement on robotic hepatectomy surgery in 2018.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Step-by-step strategy in the management of residual hepatolithiasis using post-operative cholangioscopy.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2017Review
- [Advances in basic and clinical research on hepatocellular carcinoma in 2016].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary hepatolithiasis is a disease characterized by primary biliary ductal abnormality with stone formation predominantly within the intrahepatic bile ducts. Its management is difficult, but liver resection has emerged as a promising treatment option.
methodsRobotic liver resection (RLR) has been adopted in our center for the management of patients with hepatolithiasis. The operative and short-term outcomes of this cohort of patients were compared with a historical cohort of patients using open approach (OLR). A subgroup analysis was performed for left lateral sectionectomy.
resultsBetween September 2010 and April 2015, 15 RLRs were performed on patients with primary hepatolithiasis. The historical cohort consisted of 42 OLRs with operation done between January 2005 and January 2014. No differences were found in patient demographics, disease characteristics, or types of resection. No operative deaths occurred, and no difference was seen in complication rates. RLR had significantly less blood loss (100 vs. 235 ml; p = 0.011) and shorter hospital stays (6 vs. 8 days; p = 0.003). After a median follow-up of 19.4 months for RLRs and 79.2 months for OLRs (p < 0.001), there were no differences in residual stone rate, recurrent stone rate, or rate of recurrent cholangitis. Subgroup analysis of lateral sectionectomy (10 RLRs vs. 27 OLRs) revealed similar outcomes, i.e., less blood loss and shorter hospital stays in RLR.
conclusionsRobotic liver resection reduces blood loss and shortens hospital stays compared with OLR. A longer follow-up is needed to assess the long-term outcomes of RLR regarding prevention of recurrent stones and cholangitis.
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.