ArticleThe British journal of surgery2021
International multicentre propensity score-matched analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy.
Article in The British journal of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Multi-centric international 10-year review of surgical magnetic mechatronics in HPB, bariatrics, OB-GYN, urology and neurosurgery: minimally invasive technology, robot design & actuator-sensor fusion.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Anatomic Liver Resection: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Validation of the three-level hepatectomy complexity classification and its AI application in robotic liver surgery.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Internal validation of the Tampa Robotic Difficulty Scoring System: real-time assessment of the novel robotic scoring system in predicting financial costs of hepatectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- The role of the AST-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) score on outcomes following robotic minor, technically major, & major hepatectomy for liver tumors.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Comparing Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of Cancer · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.Hepatology international · 2024Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver malignancies (ROC'N'ROLL): a single-centre, randomised, controlled, single-blinded clinical trial.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- 10 years, 100 robotic major hepatectomies: a single-center experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Impact of Minimally Invasive Surgery on Anatomic Liver Segmentectomy Using the Extrahepatic Glissonean Approach.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Advances in minimally invasive liver surgery.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2024Review
- Impact of Liver Cirrhosis, Severity of Cirrhosis, and Portal Hypertension on the Difficulty and Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robotic Major Liver Resections for Primary Liver Malignancies.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Impact of body mass index on perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic major hepatectomies.Surgery · 2023Article
- Major hepatectomy in elderly patients: possible benefit from robotic platform utilization.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Major Hepatectomies: Does Robotic Assistance Increase the Feasibility of the Minimally Invasive Approach?Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Impact of body mass index on the difficulty and outcomes of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy.European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2023Article
- Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections for hepatolithiasis: an international multicenter propensity score matched analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) is a technically challenging procedure. This study was designed to determine outcomes following robotic RPS (R-RPS) and laparoscopic RPS (L-RPS).
methodsAn international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients undergoing R-RPS versus those who had purely L-RPS at 21 centres from 2010 to 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed retrospectively from a central database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, with analysis of 1 : 2 and 1 : 1 matched cohorts.
resultsThree-hundred and forty patients, including 96 who underwent R-RPS and 244 who had L-RPS, met the study criteria and were included. The median operating time was 295 minutes and there were 25 (7.4 per cent) open conversions. Ninety-seven (28.5 per cent) patients had cirrhosis and 56 (16.5 per cent) patients required blood transfusion. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was 22.1 per cent and major morbidity rate was 6.8 per cent. The median postoperative stay was 6 days. After 1 : 1 matching of 88 R-RPS and L-RPS patients, median (i.q.r.) blood loss (200 (100-400) versus 450 (200-900) ml, respectively; P < 0.001), major blood loss (> 500 ml; P = 0.001), need for intraoperative blood transfusion (10.2 versus 23.9 per cent, respectively; P = 0.014), and open conversion rate (2.3 versus 11.4 per cent, respectively; P = 0.016) were lower in the R-RPS group. Similar results were found in the 1 : 2 matched groups (66 R-RPS versus 132 L-RPS patients).
conclusionR-RPS and L-RPS can be performed in expert centres with good outcomes in well selected patients. R-RPS was associated with reduced blood loss and lower open conversion rates than L-RPS.
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.