ArticleJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Robo-Lap Approach Optimizes Intraoperative Outcomes in Robotic Left and Right Hepatectomy.
Article in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Tracking Technological Change in Liver Surgery: Robotic Adoption and Case-Mix Evolution in the I Go MILS Registry.Cancers · 2026Article
- Fusion surgery in robot-assisted esophagectomy: stepwise learning curves across the da Vinci™ and hinotori™ platforms.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- The impact of liver transection depth on surgical difficulty in robotic versus laparoscopic limited liver resection (TAKUMI-5).Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A Nationwide Propensity Score Matched Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the possible advantages of the Robo-Lap (parenchymal transection by laparoscopic ultrasonic dissector and robotic bipolar forceps and scissors) compared with pure robotic technique (parenchymal transection by use of robotic bipolar forceps and scissors) in major anatomical liver resections with specific focus on intraoperative outcomes. Methods: Major liver resections performed by robotic approach between February 1, 2021 and March 31, 2023 were stratified into two groups according to the approach used to address the phase of liver transection; Pure Robotic Group (n = 21) versus Robo-Lap Group (n = 48). The two groups were compared in terms of intra- and postoperative outcomes and in terms of rate of achievement of intraoperative textbook outcomes. Results: Conversion rate was similar between the two groups while incidence of adverse intraoperative events (according to Satava classification) was higher in the Pure Robotic compared with the Robo-Lap group (85.7% vs 39.6%, p < 0.001). Time to perform parenchymal transection was significantly shorter in the Robo-Lap group (180 min) compared with the Pure Robotic Group (240 min), p = 0.003. Intraoperative textbook outcomes were achieved in a lower proportion of patients in the Pure Robotic compared with the Robo-Lap group. Conclusion: Outcomes of the present study suggest a favorable role of the Robo-Lap approach in robotic major resections as it allows an improvement of the intraoperative results, a greater probability of an uneventful conduction of the procedure, and therefore, better management of the operating room time.
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.