SynthesisMedicine2021
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A meta-analytic and systematic review to compare perioperative outcomes and prognosis between robotic and conventional (laparoscopic or open) liver resection in hepatocellular carcinoma cases.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2024Pooled it
- Level 2a evidence comparing robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy: a meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in hepatobiliary procedures: a scoping review.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Surgery in practice and science · 2026Review
- Reaching proficiency in robotic liver surgery in two high-volume European HPB centers.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Metabolic changes after hepatectomy: Implications for perioperative management and long-term outcomes.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2025Article
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Surgical protocol of robotic liver resection using a two-surgeon technique (TAKUMI-3): a technical note and initial outcomes.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Learning curve analysis of 100 consecutive robotic liver resections.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Liver resection in stage 0-A HCC in segments 7/8: a propensity-matched analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic approach.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- The distribution of robotic surgery in general and visceral surgery departments in Switzerland - a nationwide inquiry.Innovative surgical sciences · 2024Article
- Surgical technique for fully robotic two-stage hepatectomy using indocyanine green fluorescence imaging for bilobar colorectal liver metastases.Journal of visualized surgery · 2024Article
- Robotic Revolution in Surgery: Diverse Applications Across Specialties and Future Prospects Review Article.Cureus · 2024Review
- Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a propensity score matched analysis from a bi-centric experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Implementation and Outcome of Robotic Liver Surgery in the Netherlands: A Nationwide Analysis.Annals of surgery · 2023Article
- 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
- Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis.Cancers · 2023Review
- A Comparison between Open and Minimally Invasive Techniques for the Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastasis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery are the most minimally invasive surgical approaches for the removal of liver lesions. Minor hepatectomy is a common surgical procedure. In this study, we evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of robot-assisted vs laparoscopic minor hepatectomy (LMH).
methodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies on robot-assisted vs. laparoscopicminor hepatectomy up to February, 2020. The odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model.
resultsA total of 12 studies involving 751 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 297 patients were in the robot-assisted minor hepatectomy (RMH) group and 454 patients were in the LMH group. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (P = .43), transfusion rates (P = .14), length of hospital stay (P > .64), conversion rate (P = .62), R0 resection rate (P = .56), complications (P = .92), or mortaliy (P = .37) between the 2 groups. However, the RMH group was associated with a longer operative time (P = .0003), and higher cost (P < .00001) compared to the LMH group. No significant differences in overall survival or disease free survival between the 2 groups were observed. In the subgroup analysis of left lateral sectionectomies, RMH was still associated with a longer operative time, but no other differences in clinical outcomes were observed.
conclusionsAlthough RMH is associated with longer operation times and higher costs, it exhibits the same safety and effectiveness as LMH. Prospective randomized controlled clinical trials should now be considered to obtain better evidence for clinical consensus.
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.