ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024
Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Resection for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A First, Multicenter, Trans-Atlantic, Expert-Center, Collaborative Study.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Open Versus Laparoscopic and Robotic Approach in Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis.Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and direct pairwise meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a concise systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Transitioning to the robotic era for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: initial implementation and outcomes in a single center.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Advanced robotic liver surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Full robotic liver transplantation in recipients: a narrative review of three competing surgical strategies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Robotic Partial Central Hepatectomy for Juxtahilar Tumor: Technique of Middle Hepatic Vein Tangential Reconstruction.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted surgery improves short-term outcomes of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a referral-center cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
- ASO Author Reflections: Application of Robotic Surgery for the Most Complex Hepatobiliary Cancer Resection: The Feasibility and Future Role of Robotic Technology in Treatment of Bismuth Type IV Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- ASO Authors Reflections: Could Robotics, 3D Imaging, and Liver Venous Deprivation Potentially Redefine Surgical Standards for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma?Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- International Benchmark Values for Robotic Right Hepatectomy: Multicenter Study From 22 Expert Centers.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- Key steps of complex robotic liver surgery: an international expert survey.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic operation in hilar cholangiocarcinoma patients: a case control study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Robotic Type II Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma Resection: Technique of Hilar Plate Unification Ductoplasty.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Application of Robotic Technique in Resection of Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma. A Step Toward New Alternative Approach in Bile Duct Cancer Surgery.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Beyond estimates: optimizing surgical strategies through accurate blood loss measurement.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2025Article
- Feasibility and safety of robotic radical resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma in highly selected patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025Review
- Is it time to define the scope of safety for robotic resection in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma surgery? A propensity score matching based analysis of a single center experience.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025Article
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma-A Review of the Current Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPerihilar cholangiocarcinoma is a difficult cancer to treat with frequent vascular invasion, local recurrence, and poor survival. Due to the need for biliary anastomosis and potential vascular resection, the standard approach is an open operation. Suboptimal outcomes after laparoscopic resection had been sporadically reported by high-volume centers. In this first, Trans-Atlantic, multicenter study, we report our outcomes of robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. This is the largest study of its kind in the Western hemisphere.
methodsBetween 2016 and 2023, we prospectively followed patients undergoing robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma at three, high-volume, robotic, liver-surgery centers.
resultsThirty-eight patients underwent perihilar cholangiocarcinoma utilizing the robotic technique; Klatskin type-3 was the most common. The median age was 72 years, and 82% of the patients underwent preoperative biliary drainage. Median operative time was 481 minutes with a median estimated blood loss of 200 mL. The number of harvested lymph nodes was seven, and 11 (28%) patients yielded positive lymph nodes. Three patients required vascular reconstruction; 18% of patients had >1 biliary anastomosis. R0 resection margins were achieved in 82% of patients. Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥3 complications were seen in 16% of patients. The length of stay was 6 days. Five patients had an unplanned readmission within 30 days. One patient died within 30 days. With a median follow-up of 15 months, 68% of patients are alive without disease, 13% recurred, and 19% died.
conclusionsApplication of the robotic platform for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is safe and feasible with acceptable short-term clinical and oncological outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37718337What 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.