Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33146887›Full record

SynthesisUpdates in surgery2021

State of the art in robotic liver surgery: a meta-analysis.

Zhiming Zhao, Zhuzeng Yin, Mengyang Li, Nan Jiang, Rong Liu

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. [Treatment concepts for hepatic echinococcosis].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhiming Zhao *The Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zhuzeng Yin *The Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Mengyang LiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Fourth Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Nan JiangThe Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Rong LiuThe Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China. liurong301@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5170-6474
Chinese People's Liberation Army · CNChinese PLA General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the number of robotic hepatectomy (RH) performed is increasing, few studies have reported its efficacy in comparison with the conventional surgical modalities. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative results of RH vs. open hepatectomy (OH) and RH vs. laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH). We systematically searched for English papers published in PubMed (Medline), Embase, and Cochrane library before March 1, 2020. A total of 39 papers and 2999 patients were eventually included. Among the included patients, 1249, 1010, and 740 underwent RH, LH, and OH, respectively. Compared with OH, the operation time was significantly increased but the intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate, incidence of severe complications, and length of postoperative hospitalization were significantly reduced in patients with RH. However, there was no significant difference in the use of Pringle maneuver and overall incidence of complications. Compared with LH, the operation time was significantly increased, and the intraoperative blood loss was also more in RH. However, there were no differences in blood transfusion rate, use of Pringle maneuver, incidence of complications, incidence of severe complications, and length of postoperative hospitalization between the two groups. A longer operation time remains the main shortcoming of RH. However, based on the perioperative clinical efficacy, we conclude that RH is comparable to LH but is better than OH for selected patients.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyLiver NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresBlood Loss, SurgicalHepatectomyHumansLength of StayLiverOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeHepatectomyLaparoscopicLiverRoboticSurgery

Identifiers

PMID33146887
OpenAlexW3097727752

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.