ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Short- and long-term outcomes after robotic and open liver resection for elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 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
- Comparison of efficacy between robotic and open hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- A meta-analysis between robotic hepatectomy and conventional open hepatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of robotic and open liver resections for primary liver tumors: a multicenter retrospective analysis of perioperative outcomes, morbidity and mortality.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Impact of patient factors on outcomes in robotic major and minor hepatectomy: importance of patient selection.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- 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
- Cost-effectiveness and clinical impact of robotic-assisted hepatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
- Experience-based transition to robotic surgery in an experienced program in minimally invasive hepatobiliary surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Review
- Efficacy and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.Hepatology international · 2024Article
- Robotic Major Hepatectomy in Elderly Patient.Cancers · 2024Article
- Short‑ and long‑term outcomes after laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy for elderly patients: a propensity score‑matched study.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Article
- RoboticHeliyon · 2024Article
- Short-term and long-term outcomes after robotic versus open hepatectomy in patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2024Article
- International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Short-term outcomes of robotic versus open hepatectomy among overweight patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched study.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Individualized Approach in the Surgical Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results from a Greek Multicentre Study.Cancers · 2022Article
- What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?Cancers · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic liver resection (RLR) has increasingly been accepted as it has overcome some of the limitations of open liver resection (OLR), while the outcomes following RLR in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are still uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the short and long-term outcomes of RLR vs. OLR in elderly HCC patients.
methodsPerioperative data of elderly patients (≥ 65 years) with HCC who underwent RLR or OLR between January 2010 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. A 1:2 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize the differences between RLR and OLR groups. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent prognosis factors for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of these patients.
resultsOf the 427 elderly HCC patients included in this study, 113 underwent RLR and 314 underwent OLR. After the 1:2 PSM, there were 100 and 178 patients in the RLR and the OLR groups, respectively. The RLR group had a less estimated blood loss (EBL), a shorter postoperative length of stay (LOS), and a lower complications rate (all P < 0.05), compared with the OLR group before and after PSM. Univariable and multivariable analyses showed that advanced age and surgical approaches were not independent risk factors for long-term prognosis. The two groups of elderly patients who were performed RLR or OLR had similar OS (median OS 52.8 vs. 57.6 months) and RFS (median RFS 20.4 vs. 24.6 months) rates after PSM.
conclusionsRLR was comparable to OLR in feasibility and safety. For elderly patients with HCC, RLR resulted in similar oncologic and survival outcomes as OLR.
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.