Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37845533›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024

10 years, 100 robotic major hepatectomies: a single-center experience.

Frances McCarron, Allyson Cochran, Ansley Ricker, Rohit Mantha, Michael Driedger, Michael Beckman, Dionisios Vrochides, John Martinie

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Frances McCarronDivision of Hepatobiliary & Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, 1025 Morehead Medical Dr. Suite 600, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA. fnmccarron@gmail.com.ORCID 0009-0007-3884-8460
Allyson CochranCarolinas Center for Surgical Outcomes Science, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Ansley RickerDivision of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Rohit ManthaDivision of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Michael DriedgerDivision of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Michael BeckmanDivision of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Dionisios VrochidesDivision of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
John MartinieDivision of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Carolinas Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAdoption of robotic liver resections has been gradually increasing throughout the HPB surgical community over the past decade. Currently there is limited literature which demonstrates a significant benefit of robotic surgery for major hepatectomies over open or laparoscopic. As one of the first centers to develop a robotic HPB program, we have experienced improved outcomes over time with increasing utilization of robotics. Herein, we present our 10-year experience and outcomes for major robotic liver resections.

methodsFrom 2012 to 2022, 361 robotic liver procedures were performed, including 100 major hepatectomies. A retrospective data review of the electronic medical record was performed evaluating outcomes after robotic major hepatectomy. Outcomes for the first 50 cases (Group A) and second 50 cases (Group B) were compared to identify any improvements in practice. Demographic and clinical outcome variables were analyzed. Data were assessed for normality, and Wilcoxon rank-sum, χ

resultsThere was no difference in median operative time (258 vs 256 min), EBL (500 vs 500 mL), median LOS (5 vs 3.5 days), 90-day readmission (14% vs 24%), major complications (14% vs 20%), and 90-day mortality (6% vs 4%) between early and late cases, respectively. ICU admissions and conversion rates were significantly lower in group B (14.0% vs 48.0%), while expert level difficulty indices were higher (82% vs 58%).

conclusionDevelopment of a robotic liver program with good outcomes is feasible over time. Our data suggest that our institutional learning curve for robotic major hepatectomy plateaued at approximately 50 cases.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyLiver NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresBlood Loss, SurgicalHepatectomyHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeHPBLearning curveLiverMajor hepatectomyMinimally invasiveRobotic

Identifiers

PMID37845533
OpenAlexW4387666642

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.