Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30484059›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2019

Nationwide outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic vs. open hepatectomy.

Nicholas Cortolillo, Chetan Patel, Joshua Parreco, Srinivas Kaza, Alvaro Castillo

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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 · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Simultaneous Robot Assisted Colon and Liver Resection for Metastatic Colon Cancer.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Evolution of Robotic-Assisted Hepatobiliary Surgery.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nicholas CortolilloDepartment of Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 5301 S. Congress Av, Atlantis, FL, 33462, USA. nscortolillo@med.miami.edu.
Chetan PatelDepartment of Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 5301 S. Congress Av, Atlantis, FL, 33462, USA.
Joshua ParrecoDepartment of Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 5301 S. Congress Av, Atlantis, FL, 33462, USA.
Srinivas KazaDepartment of Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 5301 S. Congress Av, Atlantis, FL, 33462, USA.
Alvaro CastilloDepartment of Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 5301 S. Congress Av, Atlantis, FL, 33462, USA.
University of Miami · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The safety of hepatectomy continues to improve and it holds a key role in the management of benign and malignant hepatic lesions. Laparoscopic and robotic approaches to hepatectomy are increasingly utilized. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic vs. open approaches to hepatectomy and to determine the national nonelective postoperative readmission rate, including readmission to other hospitals. The Nationwide Readmission Database from 2013 to 2014 was queried for all patients undergoing hepatectomy. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomies were compared to patients undergoing open hepatectomy. Multivariate logistic regression was implemented to determine the odds ratios (OR) for non-elective readmission within 45 days. There were 10,870 patients who underwent hepatectomy from 2013 to 2014 and 724 (6.7%) were approached with laparoscopic or robotic technique. The robotic cohort had lower mean cost of the index admission ($24,983 ± $18,329 vs. open $32,391 ± $31,983, p < 0.001, 95% CI - 18,292 to 534), shorter LOS (4.5 ± 3.8 vs. lap 6.8 ± 6.0 vs. open 7.6 ± 7.7 days, p < 0.01), and were less likely to be readmitted within 45 days (7.9% vs. 13.0% lap vs. 13.8% open, p = 0.05). The robotic cohort was slightly younger (mean age 57.5 ± 13.5 vs. lap 60.1 ± 13.8 vs. open 58.9 ± 13.7, p < 0.05), and no significant differences were seen by Charlson Comorbidity Index. Anastomosis of hepatic duct to GI tract carried higher odds of mortality (OR 2.87, p < 0.01) and higher odds of readmission (OR 1.40, p < 0.01). LOS above 7 days increased odds of readmission (OR 2.24, p < 0.01). Nearly one-fifth of patients readmitted after hepatectomy present to a different hospital. Robotic hepatectomy was associated with favorable cost and readmission outcomes compared to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy patients, despite similar patient comorbid burdens and patient's age. Length of stay over 7 days and anastomosis of hepatic duct to GI tract are strong risk factors for readmission and mortality.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHealth Care CostsHepatectomyHumansLaparoscopyLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedOdds RatioPatient ReadmissionRobotic Surgical ProceduresTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesCostsHepatectomyLiver resectionOutcomesRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID30484059
OpenAlexW2903356829

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.