Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30719624›Full record

SynthesisUpdates in surgery2019

Comparison between robotic and open liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes.

Nikolaos Machairas, Dimetrios Papaconstantinou, Diamantis I Tsilimigras, Dimitrios Moris, Anastasia Prodromidou, Anna Paspala, Eleftherios Spartalis, Ioannis D Kostakis

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 24 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. 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
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Diagnosis, clinical assessment, and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma: a Brazilian multidisciplinary consensus.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Evolution of Robotic-Assisted Hepatobiliary Surgery.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

8 authors.

Nikolaos Machairas3rd Department of Surgery, Attikon University Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Rimini Str. 1, 12462, Athens, Greece. nmachair@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3239-3905
Dimetrios Papaconstantinou3rd Department of Surgery, Attikon University Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Rimini Str. 1, 12462, Athens, Greece.
Diamantis I TsilimigrasLaboratory of Experimental Surgery and Surgical Research, University of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece.
Dimitrios MorisLaboratory of Experimental Surgery and Surgical Research, University of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece.
Anastasia ProdromidouLaboratory of Experimental Surgery and Surgical Research, University of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece.
Anna Paspala3rd Department of Surgery, Attikon University Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Rimini Str. 1, 12462, Athens, Greece.
Eleftherios SpartalisLaboratory of Experimental Surgery and Surgical Research, University of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece.
Ioannis D Kostakis2nd Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Laiko General Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Minimally invasive liver surgery has evolved significantly during the last 2 decades. A growing number of published studies report outcomes from robotic liver resections (RLR). The aim of our meta-analysis was to evaluate short-term outcomes after RLR vs. open liver resection (OLR). A systematic search of Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials and Clinicaltrials.gov databases for articles published from January 2000 until November 2018 was performed. Ten non-randomized retrospective clinical studies comprising a total of 1248 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Four hundred and fifty-eight patients underwent RLR and 790 underwent OLR. RLRs were associated with lower overall morbidity rates (p =0.006) and shorter hospital stay (p <0.00001), whereas OLRs were associated with shorter operative time (p =0.003). No differences were shown between the two groups with regard to blood loss, blood transfusion requirements, R0 resection and mortality rates. Cumulative conversion rate was 4.6% in the RLR group. Due to limited available data, further prospective randomized studies are needed to better determine the potential beneficial role of the robotic approach in the treatment of malignant and benign hepatic tumors.

Indexed as

Blood Loss, SurgicalBlood TransfusionDatabases, BibliographicFemaleHepatectomyHumansLength of StayMaleOperative TimeRobotic Surgical ProceduresTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeHepatectomyLength of stayMorbidityOpen liver resectionRobotic

Identifiers

PMID30719624

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.