ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Economic impact of robotic liver resection: systematic review of costs, resource utilization, and hospital stay.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Implementation of a Robotic Liver Surgery Program in a Large Municipal Hospital: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Clinical, Economic, and Learning Curve Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Anatomic Liver Resection: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Better outcomes of robotic liver resection in segment VII/VIII compared to open and laparoscopic approach.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- [Minimally invasive liver resection-New techniques].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- A Decade of Innovation: Short-Term Outcomes of 150 Robotic Liver Resections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Devices for minimally invasive liver parenchyma transection: the SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery) Italian and International survey.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Emergency robotic surgery: the experience of a single center and review of the literature.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2024Review
- Review
- RoboticHeliyon · 2024Article
- Comparative study of operative expenses: robotic vs. laparoscopic vs. open liver resections at a university hospital in the UK.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RS, LS and OS for major hepatectomies in this study.
methodsWe analyzed financial and clinical data on patients who underwent major liver resection for benign and malign lesions from 2017 to 2019 at our department. Patients were grouped according to the technical approach in RS, LS, and OS. For better comparability, only cases stratified to the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) H01A and H01B were included in this study. Financial expenses were compared between RS, LS, and OS. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with increased costs.
resultsRS, LS and OS accounted for median daily costs of 1,725 €, 1,633 € and 1,205 €, respectively (p < 0.0001). Median daily (p = 0.420) and total costs (16,648 € vs. 14,578 €, p = 0.076) were comparable between RS and LS. Increased financial expenses for RS were mainly caused by intraoperative costs (7,592 €, p < 0.0001). Length of procedure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7-16.9, p = 0.004), length of stay (HR [95% CI] = 8.8 [1.9-41.6], p = 0.006) and development of major complications (HR [95% CI] = 2.9 [1.7-5.1], p < 0.0001) were independently associated with higher costs.
conclusionsFrom an economic perspective, RS may be considered a valid alternative to LS for major liver resections.
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.