ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Robotic radical resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: perioperative and long-term outcomes of an initial series.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 11 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
48 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.
- Open Versus Laparoscopic and Robotic Approach in Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis.Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and direct pairwise meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Minimally invasive liver surgery for perihilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a concise systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted radical resection versus open surgery for cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- The role of robotic surgery for the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review of perioperative and oncologic outcomes of minimally-invasive surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma.Updates in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Current Advances in Minimally Invasive Surgical Management of Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020Pooled it
- Minimally invasive surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Systematic review of operative outcomes of robotic surgical procedures performed with endoscopic linear staplers or robotic staplers.Journal of robotic surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Advanced robotic liver surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Review
- 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
- The Hidden Cost of Precision: Financial, Training, and Environmental Trade-Offs in Robotic HPB Surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Early (≤ 1 year) anastomotic complications after laparoscopic and robotic hepaticojejunostomy: initial experience from a single center.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Robotic hepatopancreatobiliary surgery using the Toumai® system: initial experience and technical considerations from a single center.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Is it time to define the scope of safety for robotic resection in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma surgery? A propensity score matching based analysis of a single center experience.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025Article
- Feasibility and safety of robotic radical resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma in highly selected patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025Review
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma-A Review of the Current Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadical resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCa) is one of the most challenging abdominal procedures. Robotic-assisted approach is gaining popularity in hepatobiliary surgery but scarcely tried in the management of HCa. We herein report our initial experience of robotic radical resection for HCa.
methodsBetween May 2009 and October 2012, 10 patients underwent fully robotic-assisted radical resection for HCa in a single institute. The perioperative and long-term outcomes were analyzed and compared with a contemporaneous 32 patients undergoing traditional open surgery.
resultsThe 10 patients presented one of Bismuth-Corlette type II, four of IIIa, one of IIIb and four of IV. There was no significant clinicopathological disparity between the robotic and open groups. The robotic radical resection involves hemihepatectomy plus caudate lobectomy or trisectionectomy, extrahepatic bile duct resection, radical lymphadenectomy and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy. No conversion to laparotomy occurred. Robotic resection compared unfavorably to traditional open resection in operative time (703 ± 62 vs. 475 ± 121 min, p < 0.001) and morbidity [90 (9/10) vs. 50 %, p = 0.031]. No significant difference was found in blood loss, mortality and postoperative hospital stay. Major complications (≥Clavien-Dindo III) occurred in three patients of robotic group. One patient died of posthepatectomy liver failure on postoperative day 18. The hospital expenditure was much higher in robotic group (USD 27,427 ± 21,316 vs. 15,282 ± 5957, p = 0.018). The tumor recurrence-free survival was inferior in robotic group (p = 0.029).
conclusionsFully robotic-assisted radical resection for HCa is technically achievable in experienced hands and should be limited to highly selective patients. Our current results do not support continued practice of robotic surgery for HCa, until significant technical and instrumental refinements are demonstrated.
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.