SynthesisUpdates in surgery2021
Systematic review of perioperative and oncologic outcomes of minimally-invasive surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma.
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 23 papers, 4 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Open Versus Laparoscopic and Robotic Approach in Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis.Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Minimally invasive liver surgery for perihilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a concise systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- The role of robotic surgery for the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- How to efficiently establish animal models of cholangiocarcinoma: challenges and inspiration.Medical review (2021) · 2026Review
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Feasibility and safety of robotic radical resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma in highly selected patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025Review
- "Hepatic hilum area priority, liver posterior first": An optimized strategy in laparoscopic resection for type III-IV hilar cholangiocarcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Robotic Approach for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma IIIA Type: Step-by-Step Procedure.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- RoboticHeliyon · 2024Article
- Concomitant training in robotic and laparoscopic liver resections of low-to-intermediate difficulty score: a retrospective analysis of the learning curve.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Robotic Hepatectomy plus Biliary Reconstruction for Bismuth Type III and Type IV Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: State of the Art and Literature Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Update of CT-Based Radiomics Applications in the Pre-Surgical Prediction of the Risk of Post-Operative Fistula, Resectability Status and Prognosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- A "cui prodest" evaluation on the development of a minimally invasive liver surgery program: a differential benefit analysis of open and laparoscopic approach for left and right hemihepatectomies.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence to Early Predict Liver Metastases in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: Current Status and Future Prospectives.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review of the Short- and Long-Term Results.Cancers · 2023Review
- Laparoscopic versus open surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter propensity score analysis of short- term outcomes.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Robotic hepatectomy: challenge and progression.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2023Article
- Influencing factors of biliary fistula after radical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a prospect cohort.European journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Single-incision laparoscopic surgery to treat hepatopancreatobiliary cancer: A technical review.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most surgeons have traditionally been reluctant toward minimally-invasive surgery for bile duct tumors. This study aimed to perform a systematic literature review on perioperative and oncologic results of pure laparoscopic and robotic curative-intent surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. According to the PRISMA statement, a systematic review was conducted into Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane. A critical appraisal of study was performed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Nineteen studies (12 on pure laparoscopy and 7 on robotics) were included: 7 case reports, 9 case series, 3 case-control (193 patients). The pooled conversion, morbidity, biliary leak and mortality rates were 5.5%, 43%, 16.4% and 4%. The weighted mean of operative time, blood loss and postoperative stay were 388 min, 446 mL and 14 days. For pure laparoscopy, the pooled R0 rate was 86%; overall survival and disease-free survival rates ranged from 85 to 100% and from 80 to 100% (median observation time 6-18 months). For robotic surgeries, the pooled R0 rate was 69% and overall survival rates ranged from 90 to 100% (median observation time 5-15 months). Case reports were overall of high quality, case series of moderate / high-quality, case-control studies ranged from low to high quality. In selected patients, minimally-invasive surgery for Klatskin tumors appears feasible, safe, satisfactory for perioperative outcomes and adequate for oncologic results. However, the results are based on few studies, limited in patient numbers and with allocation criteria more restrictive than open, reporting short follow-up and mainly with non-comparative design: evidence of higher quality is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.