Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37428364›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2023

A propensity score matched analysis of robotic and open hepatectomy for treatment of liver tumors. Clinical outcomes, oncological survival, and costs comparison.

Shlomi Rayman, Iswanto Sucandy, Sharona B Ross, Kaitlyn Crespo, Cameron Syblis, Alexander Rosemurgy

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Shlomi RaymanDigestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.
Iswanto SucandyDigestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA. iswanto.sucandy@adventhealth.com.
Sharona B RossDigestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.
Kaitlyn CrespoDigestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.
Cameron SyblisDigestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.
Alexander RosemurgyDigestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.
AdventHealth Tampa · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Minimally invasive robotic hepatectomy is gaining popularity with a faster rate of adoption when compared to laparoscopic approach. Technical advantages brought by the robotic surgical system facilitate a transition from open to minimally invasive technique in hepatic surgery. Published matched data examining the results of robotic hepatectomy using the open approach as a benchmark are still limited. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, survival, and costs between robotic and open hepatectomy undertaken in our tertiary hepatobiliary center. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 285 consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for neoplastic liver diseases between 2012 and 2020. Propensity score matched comparison of robotic and open hepatectomy was conducted by 1:1 ratio. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The matching process assigned 49 patients to each arm, open and robotic hepatectomy. There were no differences in R1 resection rates (4% vs 4%; p = 1.00). Differences in perioperative variables between open and robotic hepatectomy included postoperative complications (16% vs 2%; p = 0.02) and length of stay (LOS) [6 (7 ± 5.0) vs 4 (5 ± 4.0) days; p = 0.002]. There were no differences between open and robotic hepatectomy regarding postoperative hepatic insufficiency (10% vs 2%; p = 0.20). No difference was seen in long-term survival outcomes. While there were no differences in costs, robotic hepatectomy was associated with lower reimbursement [$20,432 (39,191 ± 41,467.81) vs $33,190 (67,860 ± 87,707.81); p = 0.04] and lower contribution margin [$-11,229 (3902 ± 42,572.43) vs $8768 (34,690 ± 89,759.56); p = 0.03]. Compared to open approach, robotic hepatectomy robotic offers lower rates of postoperative complications, shorter LOS and similar costs, while not compromising long-term oncological outcomes. Robotic hepatectomy may eventually become the preferred approach in minimally invasive treatment of liver tumors.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyLiver NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHepatectomyHumansLength of StayPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeClinical outcomesMinimally invasive hepatectomyOncological outcomesRobotic hepatectomyRobotic liver resection costs

Identifiers

PMID37428364
OpenAlexW4383710817

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.