ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections: propensity-matched comparison of two-center experience.
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of robotic repeat hepatectomy compared to laparoscopic and open repeat hepatectomy: a retrospective comparative study.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Transition from laparoscopic to robotic hepatectomy within a minimally invasive liver surgery program: risk-adjusted learning curve assessment by multiple continuous outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in hepatobiliary procedures: a scoping review.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- [Minimally invasive liver resection-New techniques].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Transarterial Chemoembolization in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Lessons from a 10-Year Real-World Retrospective Study.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2026Article
- A Decade of Innovation: Short-Term Outcomes of 150 Robotic Liver Resections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of outcomes of robotic liver surgery using the IWATE criteria.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2025Article
- Recurrence and survival after robotic vs laparoscopic liver resection in very-early to early-stage (BCLC 0-A) hepatocellular carcinoma.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Observational
- Transabdominal Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy and CT-Guided Percutaneous Cryoablation for the Treatment of De Novo Kidney Tumors After Liver Transplantation.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparison of perioperative outcomes of open (CUSA) versus laparoscopic (LOTUS) major hepatectomy - revisited. First evaluation of efficacy and safety of AEON™ stapler.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Perioperative impact of liver cirrhosis on robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Robotic versus Laparoscopic Liver Resections for Colorectal Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2024Review
- Concomitant training in robotic and laparoscopic liver resections of low-to-intermediate difficulty score: a retrospective analysis of the learning curve.Scientific reports · 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
14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe advantages of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) are still debated. This study compares the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) liver resections in propensity score matched cohorts.
methodsData regarding minimally invasive liver resections in two liver surgery units were retrospectively reviewed. A propensity score matched analysis (1:1 ratio) identified two groups of patients with similar characteristics. Intra- and post-operative outcomes were then compared. The difficulty of MILS was based on the IWATE criteria.
resultsTwo hundred sixty-nine patients underwent MILS between January 2014 and December 2021 (LLR = 192; RLR = 77). Propensity score matching identified 148 cases (LLR = 74; RLR = 74) consisting of compensated cirrhotic patients (100%) underwent non-anatomic resection of IWATE 1-2 class (90.5%) for a solitary tumor < 5 cm in diameter (93.2%). In such patients, RLRs had shorter operative time (227 vs. 250 min, p = 0.002), shorter Pringle's cumulative time (12 vs. 28 min, p < 0.0001), and less blood loss (137 vs. 209 cc, p = 0.006) vs. LLRs. Conversion rate was nihil (both groups). In RLRs compared to LLRs, R0 rate (93 vs. 96%, p > 0.71) and major morbidity (4.1 vs. 5.4%, p > 0.999) were similar, without post-operative mortality. Hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (6.2 vs. 6.6, p = 0.0001).
conclusionThis study supports the non-inferiority of RLR over LLR. In compensated cirrhotic patients underwent resection of low-to-intermediate difficulty for a solitary nodule < 5 cm, RLR was faster, with less blood loss despite the shorter hilar clamping, and required shorter hospitalization compared to LLR.
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.