ArticleWorld journal of surgery2017
Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Left Lateral Sectionectomy: Analysis of Surgical Outcomes and Costs by a Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 6 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Economic impact of robotic liver resection: systematic review of costs, resource utilization, and hospital stay.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Level 2a evidence comparing robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy: a meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Pooled it
- State of the art in robotic liver surgery: a meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021Pooled it
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal hypertension: interim analysis of an open prospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Trial
- Early outcomes of single-port robotic left lateral sectionectomy in patients with hepatic tumor.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2024Article
- Article
- International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Global dissemination of minimally invasive living donor hepatectomy: What are the barriers?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Review
- An international multicentre propensity score matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Short-term outcomes of da Vinci Xi versus Si robotic systems for minor hepatectomies.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Article
- Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic liver resection in ordinary cases of left lateral sectionectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Outcomes after 3D laparoscopic and robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Modern therapeutic approaches for the treatment of malignant liver tumours.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2020Review
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Partial Mesorectal Excision for Cancer of the High Rectum: A Single-Center Study with Propensity Score Matching Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2020Article
- Does preoperative MELD score affect outcomes following robotic hepatectomy for liver tumors?Journal of robotic surgery · 2020Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: application of the difficulty scoring system.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAfter comparing with open approach, left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) has become standard in terms of short-term outcomes without jeopardizing long-term survival when performed for malignancy. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term and economic outcomes of laparoscopic (L-LLS) and robotic (R-LLS) LLS.
methodsAll consecutive patients who underwent L-LLS or R-LLS from 1997 to 2014 were analyzed. Short-term and economic outcomes were compared between the two groups using a propensity score matching (PSM).
resultsNinety-six consecutive cases of LLS were performed using the laparoscopic (80 cases; 83 %) or robotic (16 cases; 17 %) approach. The two groups were similar for operative and surgical outcomes. Operation time was similar in the R-LLS compared to the L-LLS group (190 vs. 162 min; p = 0.10). Perioperative costs were higher (1457 € vs. 576 €; p < 0.0001) in the R-LLS group than in the L-LLS group; however, postoperative costs were similar between the two groups (4065 € in the R-LLS group vs. 5459 € in the L-LLS group; p = 0.30). Total costs were similar between the two groups (5522 € in the R-LLS group vs. 6035€ in the L-LLS group; p = 0.70). The PSM included 14 patients for each group. Surgical and economic outcomes remained similar after PSM, except for total operating time which was significantly longer in the R-LLS group than in the L-LLS group.
conclusionsEven if feasible and safe, the robotic approach does not seem so far to offer additional benefit in terms of intra- and postoperative outcomes over the laparoscopic approach in patients requiring LLS. Total costs associated with the R-LLS group are not greater than that associated with the L-LLS group, which is the standard of care so far.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27743071What 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.