ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety of surgery for managing hyperthyroidism in patients with or without preoperative euthyroidism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Endocrine · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2024Pooled it
- Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation.Hepatology international · 2024Guideline
- Liver Transplantation in the Era of Metabolic Bariatric Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis.Obesity surgery · 2026Review
- Full robotic liver transplantation in recipients: a narrative review of three competing surgical strategies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic-assisted donor and recipient hepatectomy in liver transplantation: An umbrella review of clinical outcomes, surgical performance, and cost-effectiveness.World journal of transplantation · 2026Article
- The aim of donor safety: surgical approaches and current results.Updates in surgery · 2025Review
- Indications and results of right-lobe living donor liver transplantation.Updates in surgery · 2025Review
- Future perspectives of robotics in liver transplantation.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Chinese guidelines for minimally invasive donor hepatectomy in living donor liver transplantation (2024 edition).Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2024Review
- Management of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases.Cancers · 2024Article
- International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 14 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) compared to open (ODRH) and laparoscopic (LADRH) approaches. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and six additional databases following PRISMA guidelines. Data on morbidity, postoperative liver function, and pain in donors and recipients were extracted from studies comparing RLDRH, ODRH, and LADRH published up to September 2020; PROSPERO (CRD42020214313). Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios and continuous variables as weighted mean differences. Four studies with a total of 517 patients were included. In living donors, the postoperative total bilirubin level (MD: −0.7 95%CI −1.0, −0.4), length of hospital stay (MD: −0.8 95%CI −1.4, −0.3), Clavien−Dindo complications I−II (RR: 0.5 95%CI 0.2, 0.9), and pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.6 95%CI −1.6, 0.4) were lower following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Furthermore, the pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.4 95%CI −0.8, −0.09) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In recipients, the postoperative AST level was lower (MD: −0.5 95%CI −0.9, −0.1) following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Moreover, the length of stay (MD: −6.4 95%CI −11.3, −1.5) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In summary, we identified low- to unclear-quality evidence that RLDRH seems to be safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared to the conventional approaches. No postoperative deaths were reported.
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.