ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Based on the IWATE criteria: to investigate the influence of different surgical approaches on the perioperative outcomes of hepatectomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus open hepatectomy for IWATE expert-level liver resection: a risk-adjusted comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Intersegmental veins between segments 5 and 8 as a landmark along the intersegmental planes during laparoscopic anatomical segmentectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Evaluation of outcomes of robotic liver surgery using the IWATE criteria.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2025Article
- A Nanocarrier Enhances the Anti-Liver Cancer Efficacy of Mitoxantrone: An AcidicCurrent drug delivery · 2025Article
- Validation of the IWATE Criteria in Robotic-Assisted Liver Resections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn terms of perioperative outcomes, compared with traditional open surgery and laparoscopic surgery, studies of robotic liver resection have been limited and must be further clarified.
methodsClinical data from 465 patients who underwent liver resection were collected in this retrospective study, and the IWATE criteria were used to evaluate the difficulty level of each operation. We compared perioperative outcomes of open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches for patients with uncomplicated and complex hepatectomy according to different IWATE scores. Among patients with uncomplicated hepatectomy, the median operation time was significantly longer in the robotic liver resection (RLR) group than in the open liver resection (OLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) groups; however, the RLR group had the shortest hospital stay. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, conversion rate, total complication rate, or serious complication rate among the three groups.
resultsAmong patients with complex hepatectomy, the RLR group had the smallest intraoperative blood loss and shortest mean length of stay. The cases converted to open hepatectomy were lower in the RLR group than in the laparoscopic group, mainly based on the IWATE score of expert hepatectomy. The incidence of general and serious postoperative complications in the RLR group was significantly lower than that in the OLR and LLR groups.
conclusionsRobotic liver resection is a safe and feasible surgical method that is more advantageous than laparoscopic and open liver resection, especially in complex liver surgery.
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.