Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37173594›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023

Major hepatectomy in elderly patients: possible benefit from robotic platform utilization.

Osamu Yoshino, Yifan Wang, Frances McCarron, Benjamin Motz, Huaping Wang, Erin Baker, David Iannitti, John B Martinie, Dionisios Vrochides

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Inferior vena cava hemangioma resected using a novel Toumai robotic surgical platform.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2024
    Article
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Osamu YoshinoDivision of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA. osamu.yoshino@austin.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1219-5362
Yifan WangDepartment of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Frances McCarronDivision of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Benjamin MotzDivision of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Huaping WangDivision of Research, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Erin BakerDivision of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
David IannittiDivision of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
John B MartinieDivision of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Dionisios VrochidesDivision of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Carolinas Medical Center · USAustin Hospital · AUMcGill University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRobotic surgery has been increasingly utilized, yet its application for hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) procedures remains low due to technical complexity, perceived financial burden, and unproven clinical benefits. We hypothesized that the robotic approach would be associated with improved clinical outcomes following major hepatectomy compared with the laparoscopic approach among elderly patients who would benefit from the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

methodsA retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent major hepatectomy between January 2010 and December 2021 at Carolinas Medical Center was performed. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 65 years and major hepatectomy of three segments or more. Patients who underwent multiple liver resections, vascular/biliary reconstruction, or concomitant extrahepatic procedures (except cholecystectomy) were excluded. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test when more than 20% of cells had expected frequencies less than five, and Wilcoxon two-sample or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for continuous or ordinal variables. Results are described as median and interquartile range (IQR). Multivariate analyses were used on postoperative admission days.

resultsThere were 399 major hepatectomies performed during this time period, of which 125 met the criteria and were included. There were no differences in perioperative demographics among patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy (RH, n = 39) and laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH, n = 32). There was no difference in operative time, blood loss, or major complication rates. However, RH had lower rates of conversion to an open procedure (2.6% versus 31.3%, p = 0.002), shorter length of hospital stay [LOS, 4 (3-7) versus 6 (4-8.5) days, p ≤ 0.0001], cumulative LOS [4 (3-7) versus 6 (4.5-9) days, p ≤ 0.0001], and lower rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (7.7% versus 75%, p ≤ 0.001), with a trend toward fewer rehabilitation requirements.

conclusionsRobot major hepatectomy shows clinical advantages in elderly patients, including shorter hospital and ICU stays. These advantages, as well as reduced rehabilitation requirements associated with minimally invasive surgery, could overcome the current perceived financial disadvantages of robotic hepatectomy.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyLiver NeoplasmsRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedCholecystectomyHepatectomyHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeRobotic-assisted hepatectomyRobotic hepatectomy

Identifiers

PMID37173594
OpenAlexW4376271948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.