ArticleJAMA surgery2023
Safety and Efficacy of Robotic vs Open Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Article in JAMA surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 6 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
90 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 134 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for benign liver diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- The role of resection in hepatocellular carcinoma BCLC stage B: A multi-institutional patient-level meta-analysis and systematic review.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Radiofrequency ablation versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- A meta-analysis between robotic hepatectomy and conventional open hepatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence and personalised medicine in liver cancer.Journal of hepatology · 2026Review
- Minimally invasive versus open liver resection for benign disease: analysis of textbook outcomes according to difficulty of resections and role of the robotic approach.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Transition from laparoscopic to robotic hepatectomy within a minimally invasive liver surgery program: risk-adjusted learning curve assessment by multiple continuous outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted liver surgery: A comparison between patients with and without previous abdominal surgery.Surgery open science · 2026Article
- Robotic versus open hepatectomy for IWATE expert-level liver resection: a risk-adjusted comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Advanced robotic liver surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Global research trends in robot-assisted hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a visualized bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Scientific growth and research impact in robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: evidence from almost 1,000 publications and top- 100 most cited literature.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- ASO Author Reflections: A New Era for Minimally Invasive Surgery in Liver Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Robotic Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Comparison of robotic and open liver resections for primary liver tumors: a multicenter retrospective analysis of perioperative outcomes, morbidity and mortality.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Article
- Robotic liver resection for primary and metastatic hepatobiliary cancer. A decade single-center experience on perioperative and overall survival outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Does complexity compromise outcomes in robotic hepatectomy?Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
18 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery remain a hotly debated topic in surgical oncology, but sparse data have been published thus far. Objective: To analyze short- and long-term outcomes of robotic liver resection (RLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from Western high-volume centers to assess the safety, reproducibility, and oncologic efficacy of this technique. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated the outcomes of patients receiving RLR vs open liver resection (OLR) for HCC between 2010 and 2020 in 5 high-volume centers. After 1:1 propensity score matching, a group of patients who underwent RLR was compared with a validation cohort of OLR patients from a high-volume center that did not perform RLR. Main Outcomes and Measures: A retrospective analysis was performed of prospectively maintained databases at 2 European and 2 US institutions of patients who underwent RLR for HCC between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2020. The main outcomes were safety and feasibility of RLR for HCC and its oncologic outcomes compared with a European OLR validation cohort. A 2-sided P < .05 was considered significant. Results: The study included 398 patients (RLR group: 125 men, 33 women, median [IQR] age, 66 [58-71] years; OLR group: 315 men, 83 women; median [IQR] age, 70 [64-74] years), and 106 RLR patients were compared with 106 OLR patients after propensity score matching. The RLR patients had a significantly longer operative time (median [IQR], 295 [190-370] minutes vs 200 [165-255] minutes, including docking; P < .001) but a significantly shorter hospital length of stay (median [IQR], 4 [3-6] days vs 10 [7-13] days; P < .001) and a lower number of admissions to the intensive care unit (7 [6.6%] vs 21 [19.8%]; P = .002). Incidence of posthepatectomy liver failure was significantly lower in the RLR group (8 [7.5%] vs 30 [28.3%]; P = .001), with no cases of grade C failure. The 90-day overall survival rate was comparable between the 2 groups (RLR, 99.1% [95% CI, 93.5%-99.9%]; OLR, 97.1% [95% CI, 91.3%-99.1%]), as was the cumulative incidence of death related to tumor recurrence (RLR, 8.8% [95% CI, 3.1%-18.3%]; OLR, 10.2% [95% CI, 4.9%-17.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This study represents the largest Western experience to date of full RLR for HCC. Compared with OLR, RLR performed in tertiary centers represents a safe treatment strategy for patients with HCC and those with compromised liver function while achieving oncologic efficacy.
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.