Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29981056›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2019

Fully robotic left hepatectomy for malignant tumor: technique and initial results.

Marco Vito Marino, Gaspare Gulotta, Andrzej Lech Komorowski

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marco Vito MarinoDepartment of Emergency and General Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera "Villa Sofia-Cervello", Salerno place 1, 90146, Palermo (PA), Italy. marco.vito.marino@gmail.com.
Gaspare GulottaDepartment of Emergency and General Surgery, Policlinico "Paolo Giaccone", University Hospital, Giuffrè street 5, 90127, Palermo, Italy.
Andrzej Lech KomorowskiDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Maria Sklodowska Curie Cancer Center Memorial Hospital, Garncarska street 11, 31-115, Krakow, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic liver surgery has been considered as a unique opportunity to overcome the traditional limitations of laparoscopy; thus, it can potentially extend the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery. From April 2015 to May 2017, 35 patients underwent fully robotic left hepatectomy. The mean operative time was 315 min (200-445 min) and the mean estimated blood loss was 245 ml (125-628 ml). Pringle maneuver was required in six cases. Cancer was the indication for surgery in all patients (14 liver metastases, 18 hepatocellular carcinomas and 3 cholangiocarcinomas). There were one to four lesions in a patient and the mean lesion size was 39.2 mm (15-85 mm). The average length of hospital stay was 6.5 days (5-14 days). Perioperative morbidity rate was 17.2%. Two patients underwent conversion to open surgery. The 90-day mortality rate was nil. The mean surgical resection margin was 12 (1-22) mm, and R0-resection was reached in 33 out of 35 cases. The robotic left hepatectomy provides interesting surgical outcomes and good oncologic adequacy. It can be safely applied for the management of liver malignancies.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBlood Loss, SurgicalCarcinoma, HepatocellularCholangiocarcinomaFemaleHepatectomyHumansLength of StayLiverLiver NeoplasmsMargins of ExcisionMiddle AgedOperative TimeRobotic Surgical ProceduresTreatment OutcomeLiver resectionMinimally invasive surgeryRobotic left hepatectomyRobotic liver resection

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.