ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Oncological and surgical result of hepatoma after robot surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Global research trends in robot-assisted hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a visualized bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Validation and applicability of the Tampa Difficulty Score for assessing procedural complexity in robotic liver surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Review
- Correlation Between Illness Uncertainty in Caregivers of Patients with Liver Cancer, Their Coping Styles, and Quality of Life.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Article
- Review
- Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Primary Hepatobiliary Tumors-Possibilities and Limitations.Cancers · 2022Review
- Major robotic hepatectomies: technical considerations.Updates in surgery · 2021Article
- Robotic versus open hemihepatectomy: a propensity score-matched study.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Robotic major liver resections: Surgical outcomes compared with open major liver resections.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2021Article
- Robotic Surgery for Malignant Liver Disease: a Systematic Review of Oncological and Surgical Outcomes.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2020Review
- International consensus statement on robotic hepatectomy surgery in 2018.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Current status of surgical treatment of colorectal liver metastases.World journal of clinical cases · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost liver resections are currently performed using an open approach. Robotic hepatectomy has been suggested as a safe and effective approach for hepatocellular carcinoma; however, studies regarding oncological and surgical outcomes are still limited. Accordingly, we performed this study to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes between robotic and open approaches.
methodsBetween June, 2013 and July, 2016, a total of 63 HCC patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy, and 177 patients undergoing open hepatectomy were included in this study to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes after hepatectomy. The data of demographic, clinical features, hepatitis profile, tumor characters, TNM stage, surgical type, pathological outcomes, and postoperative results were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively.
resultsThe demographic and clinical features of patients with HCC in both groups were statistically comparable. The robotic group had longer operative times (296 ± 84 vs. 182 ± 51 min, p = 0.032). The postoperative complications rate was slightly lower in the robotic group (11.1 vs. 15.3%, p = 0.418). The rate of Ro resection was similar in both groups (93.7 vs. 96%, p = 0.56). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the robotic group (6.21 ± 2.06 vs. 8.18 ± 6.99 days, p = 0.001). The overall recurrence rate of HCC was lower in the robotic group (27 vs. 37.3%, p = 0.140). The 1, 2, 3 year disease-free survival rates were 72.5, 64.3, and 61.6%, respectively, for the open group, while they were 77.8, 71.9, and 71.9%, respectively, for the robotic group, (p = 0.325). The 1, 2, 3 year overall survival rates were 95.4, 92.3, and 92.3%, respectively, for the open group, while they were 100, 97.7, and 97.7%, respectively, for the robotic group (p = 0.137).
conclusionRobotic surgery is a safe and feasible procedure for liver resection in selected patients. The oncological and surgical outcomes of robotic hepatectomy were comparable to open surgery. The robotic hepatectomy carried significantly shorter length of hospital stay.
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.