ArticleCancer2022
Outcomes of robotic-assisted liver surgery versus laparoscopic liver surgery for treatment of stage I hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for liver malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- Feasibility of robotic liver resection compared with laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of robotic vs. laparoscopic right hepatectomy: propensity score matching and machine learning analysis for outcome prediction.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Recombinant human type-5 adenovirus (H101) combined with radiofrequency ablation versus traditional radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma ≤ 3 cm: a phase III randomized controlled trial.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery at the operational level: an investigation of surgeons' perspectives.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Robotic vs laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: multicentric propensity-score matched analysis of surgical and oncologic outcomes in 647 patients.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Modern therapeutic approaches for hepatic tumors: progress, limitations, and future directions.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Recurrence and survival after robotic vs laparoscopic liver resection in very-early to early-stage (BCLC 0-A) hepatocellular carcinoma.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Observational
- Review
- Chitosan-based biomaterial delivery strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections: propensity-matched comparison of two-center experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Robotic, laparoscopic, and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matched analysis of perioperative outcomes.Surgery in practice and science · 2023Article
- International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Recent therapeutics in hepatocellular carcinoma.American journal of cancer research · 2023Review
- Review
- The Role of ICG in Robot-Assisted Liver Resections.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis article investigated whether robotic-assisted liver surgery versus laparoscopic liver surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has similar or different short- and long-term clinical outcomes.
methodsA total of 3049 patients from the National Cancer Database who received minimally invasive surgery (ie, robotic or laparoscopic surgery) for stage I HCC cancers between 2010 to 2015, of which 123 had robotic and 2926 had laparoscopic surgeries performed, were identified. Logistic regression was applied to evaluate short-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards models were applied to estimate all-cause mortality at 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years after surgery, adjusting for potential confounders. Propensity score-matched analyses were conducted to compare long-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries.
resultsRobotic surgery was associated with improved overall survival, with 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates (SRs) of 0.92, 0.75, and 0.63 compared with laparoscopic surgery SRs of 0.86, 0.60, and 0.45, respectively (P value <.01). Multivariate analyses showed that robotic compared with laparoscopic surgery had significantly lower 5-year total mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 and 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45%-0.93% for intent-to-treat; HR, 0.62 and 95% CI, 0.42%-0.91% for end-treatment analyses). Similar results were found in propensity score matched analyses; robotic surgery was associated with improved overall survival compared with laparoscopic surgery (HR, 0.64 and 95% CI, 0.43%-0.96% for intent-to-treat; HR, 0.59 and 95% CI, 0.39%-0.90% for end-treatment).
conclusionsRobotic surgery is not inferior to laparoscopic surgery in treating early-stage HCC and may be associated with improved long-term survival.
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.