ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
An international multicentre propensity score matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy.
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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Conversion in Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery: The Impact of Conversion Urgency and Surgical Approach.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Robotic Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- The role of the AST-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) score on outcomes following robotic minor, technically major, & major hepatectomy for liver tumors.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Surgical treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma in era of multidisciplinary strategies.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Tampa difficulty score: a scoring system for difficulty of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A Nationwide Propensity Score Matched Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024Article
- Validation of the IWATE Criteria in Robotic-Assisted Liver Resections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Resection for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A First, Multicenter, Trans-Atlantic, Expert-Center, Collaborative Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Multidimensional Nomogram to Predict Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula after Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Which one is better? Laparoscopic versus robotic reconstruction in the remnant soft pancreas with a small pancreatic duct following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a multicenter study with propensity score matching analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLeft lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is one of the most commonly performed minimally invasive liver resections. While laparoscopic (L)-LLS is a well-established technique, over traditional open resection, it remains controversial if robotic (R)-LLS provides any advantages of L-LLS.
methodsA post hoc analysis of 997 patients from 21 international centres undergoing L-LLS or R-LLS from 2006 to 2020 was conducted. A total of 886 cases (214 R-LLS, 672 L-LLS) met study criteria. 1:1 and 1:2 propensity score matched (PSM) comparison was performed between R-LLS & L-LLS. Further subset analysis by Iwate difficulty was also performed. Outcomes measured include operating time, blood loss, open conversion, readmission rates, morbidity and mortality.
resultsComparison between R-LLS and L-LLS after PSM 1:2 demonstrated statistically significantly lower open conversion rate in R-LLS than L-LLS (0.6% versus 5%, p = 0.009) and median blood loss was also statistically significantly lower in R-LLS at 50 (80) versus 100 (170) in L-LLS (p = 0.011) after PSM 1:1 although there was no difference in the blood transfusion rate. Pringle manoeuvre was also found to be used more frequently in R-LLS, with 53(24.8%) cases versus to 84(12.5%) L-LLS cases (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the other key perioperative outcomes such as operating time, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity and 90-day mortality between both groups.
conclusionR-LLS was associated with similar key perioperative outcomes compared to L-LLS. It was also associated with significantly lower blood loss and open conversion rates compared to L-LLS.
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.