ReviewHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2017
Use of robotics in liver donor right hepatectomy.
Review in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic donor hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation.Updates in surgery · 2025Review
- A narrative review of the current and future role of robotic surgery in liver surgery and transplantation.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2023Review
- Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy, are we ready for prime time?World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Exploring new trends in living related liver transplantation.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2018Article
- Use of robotics in liver donor right hepatectomy.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2018Article
- Use of robotics in liver donor right hepatectomy.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2018Article
- Robotic surgery: the promise and finally the progress.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Liver transplantation is the best solution for end stage liver disease, and has been widely accepted and rapidly developed in the past decades. Along with the improved outcomes of liver transplantation, living-related donor transplantation has been conducted to overcome the shortage of the deceased donor. The most important aspects of the living-related liver transplantation are donor safety and fast recovery after graft procurement. Meanwhile, the rapid progress of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in general surgery has generated heated debate regarding the appropriateness of MIS in living-related donor graft hepatectomy. Technical innovations and instrument enhancements have been allowing recruitment of more potential candidates through smaller wounds and better surgical experience. Although MIS has been documented with safety and feasibility in complex liver surgery, the progress is slow in regard to the application of MIS in donor graft hepatectomy. Pioneer surgeons have devoted themselves to develop the pure MIS approach for the liver donor surgery, but the steep learning curve for pure MIS major hepatectomy remains a major barrier for wide adoption. The introduction of robotic system may lower the barrier for entry for practice into MIS donor hepatectomy.
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.