Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35566727›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022

Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Eddy P Lincango Naranjo, Estefany Garces-Delgado, Timo Siepmann, Lutz Mirow, Paola Solis-Pazmino, Harold Alexander-Leon, Gabriela Restrepo-Rodas, Rafael Mancero-Montalvo, Cristina J Ponce, Ramiro Cadena-Semanate and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

22 authors at 14 institutions in 6 countries.

Eddy P Lincango NaranjoKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4668-7429
Estefany Garces-DelgadoEquipo de Investigación de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Cirugía Bariátrica y Metabólica (SECBAMET), Quito 170508, Ecuador.
Timo SiepmannDivision of Health Care Sciences, Center for Clinical Research and Management Education, Dresden International University, 01067 Dresden, Germany.
Lutz MirowDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Medical Campus Chemnitz of the TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Paola Solis-PazminoDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Harold Alexander-LeonEquipo de Investigación de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Cirugía Bariátrica y Metabólica (SECBAMET), Quito 170508, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0001-6261-636X
Gabriela Restrepo-RodasEquipo de Investigación de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Cirugía Bariátrica y Metabólica (SECBAMET), Quito 170508, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-8324-3969
Rafael Mancero-MontalvoEquipo de Investigación de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Cirugía Bariátrica y Metabólica (SECBAMET), Quito 170508, Ecuador.
Cristina J PonceEquipo de Investigación de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Cirugía Bariátrica y Metabólica (SECBAMET), Quito 170508, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0001-9019-1856
Ramiro Cadena-SemanateEquipo de Investigación de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Cirugía Bariátrica y Metabólica (SECBAMET), Quito 170508, Ecuador.
Ronnal Vargas-CordovaEquipo de Investigación de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Cirugía Bariátrica y Metabólica (SECBAMET), Quito 170508, Ecuador.
Glenda Herrera-CevallosEquipo de Investigación de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Cirugía Bariátrica y Metabólica (SECBAMET), Quito 170508, Ecuador.
Sebastian VallejoKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Carolina Liu-SanchezInstituto de Medicina Tropical Alexander von Humboldt, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima 15102, Peru.ORCID 0000-0001-8818-9781
Larry J ProkopMayo Clinic Libraries, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Ioannis A ZiogasDivision of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
Michail G Vailas1st Department of Surgery, Laikon General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-7357-6532
Alfredo D GuerronDivision of Metabolic and Weight Loss Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4104-9631
Brendan C VisserDivision of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Oscar J PonceKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Andrew S BarbasDepartment of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3476-2313
Dimitrios MorisDepartment of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5276-0699
Universidad Internacional del Ecuador · ECDuke University · USDresden International University · DEStanford University · USFrimley Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBHospital Metropolitano · ECMayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRTechnische Universität Dresden · DEUniversidad de Las Américas · ECUniversidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia · PEUniversidad San Francisco de Quito · ECVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

liver transplantationmeta-analysisrobotsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35566727
PMCPMC9103024
OpenAlexW4229036064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.