ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Minimally invasive liver resection in the era of robotics: analysis of 214 cases.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 6 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, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Economic impact of robotic liver resection: systematic review of costs, resource utilization, and hospital stay.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- State of the art in robotic liver surgery: a meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- 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 · 2021Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus robotic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Pooled it
- Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: A meta-analysis.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: an observational study.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
- Article
- Technical advances in robotic retinal surgery: a systematic review and future research directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- [Robotic liver surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Full-robotic liver resection of segment V-Vi using the harmonic ace curved shears and the hanging technique: an easy way to do it.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Robot-assisted liver resection: the real benefit so far.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Review
- Article
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Patient Selection and Special Considerations.Hepatic medicine : evidence and research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally Invasive Liver Resection (MILR) techniques range from a hybrid-technique to full robotic approaches. When compared with open techniques, MILR has been shown to be advantageous by reducing pain, complications, length of stay and blood loss. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and hospital resource utilization between full laparoscopic, hand-assisted, and robotic liver resections among major (≥ 3 segments) and minor (≤ 2 segments) resections.
methodsA single-center comparative retrospective review was completed on 214 patients undergoing full laparoscopic, hand-assisted, or robotic liver resection procedures between 2005 and 2018.
resultsAmong minor resections: 85 full laparoscopic, 40 hand-assisted, and 35 robotic liver resection cases were analyzed; and among major resections: 13, 33, and 8 cases were analyzed, respectively. In the adjusted subgroup analysis of minor resections, OR time was significantly longer for the minor hand-assisted group ([Formula: see text] = 181 min; p < 0.05), and the average lesion size was smaller for the minor full laparoscopic group ([Formula: see text] = 4.2 cm; p < 0.05). Overall, direct hospital charges were lowest in the group of patients who underwent a minor resection using the full laparoscopic technique ([Formula: see text] = $39,054.90; p < 0.05), compared to the robotic technique. Due to the smaller sample size (n = 54) in the major resection subgroup, only two significant observations were made - the full laparoscopic group had the least amount of blood loss ([Formula: see text] = 227 cc; p < 0.05) and incurred the least amount of room and board charges compared to the other two techniques.
conclusionsThe robotic approach appears favorable for minor resections as evidenced by shorter length of stay but more costly than full laparoscopy. Clinical outcomes appear to be more dependent upon the magnitude of the resection (i.e. major vs. minor) than the MILR technique chosen. Randomized trials may be indicated to discern the best indications and advantages of each technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30937618What 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.