Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34698926›Full record

SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2022

Level 2a evidence comparing robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy: a meta-analysis.

Shahin Hajibandeh, Shahab Hajibandeh, Alexios Dosis, Mohammed Kaif Qayum, Karim Hassan, Ambareen Kausar, Thomas Satyadas

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. The Role of ICG in Robot-Assisted Liver Resections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
    Article
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

7 authors.

Shahin Hajibandeh *Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK. shahin_hajibandeh@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6159-1068
Shahab Hajibandeh *Department of General Surgery, Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Cwm Taf University Health Board, Pontyclun, UK.
Alexios DosisDepartment of General Surgery, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, Yorkshire, UK.
Mohammed Kaif QayumHepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Karim HassanDepartment of General Surgery, Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Cwm Taf University Health Board, Pontyclun, UK.
Ambareen KausarDepartment of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Royal Blackburn Hospital, Blackburn, UK.
Thomas SatyadasDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Manchester Royal Infirmary Hospital, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate comparative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy (LLS).

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and bibliographic reference lists with application of a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators and limits was conducted. Overall, minor (Clavien-Dindo grade < III) and major (Clavien-Dindo grade > III) postoperative complications, mortality, volume of blood loss, conversion to an open procedure, procedure time, length of hospital stay, cost-effectiveness and R1 resection were the evaluated outcome measures.

resultsSeven comparative observational studies reporting a total of 319 patients of whom 150 underwent robotic LLS and the remaining 169 patients underwent laparoscopic LLS were included. The robotic approach was associated with significantly longer procedure time (MD: 29.40 min, p = 0.01) and higher cost (MD: $4170, p < 0.00001) compared to the laparoscopic approach. There was no significant difference in overall postoperative morbidity (OR: 1.29, p = 0.62), Clavien-Dindo grade < III (OR: 1.65, p = 0.49), Clavien-Dindo grade > III (OR: 1.18, p = 0.85), perioperative mortality (RD: 0.00, p = 1.00), volume of blood loss (MD: 1.96 mls, p = 0.91), conversion to an open procedure (RD: - 0.02, p = 0.46), length of hospital stay (MD: 0.22 day, p = 0.52) or R1 resection (RD:0.00, p = 1.00) between two groups.

conclusionsMeta-analysis of the best available evidence (level 2) demonstrated that robotic LLS is associated with significantly longer procedure time and higher cost and similar perioperative outcomes compared to the laparoscopic approach. Future randomised studies are required to evaluate short-term perioperative, long-term oncological and surgeon-centred outcomes.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansLength of StayPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeHepatic resectionLaparoscopicLeft lateral sectionectomyRobotic

Identifiers

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.