ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024
Comparative study of operative expenses: robotic vs. laparoscopic vs. open liver resections at a university hospital in the UK.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic impact of robotic liver resection: systematic review of costs, resource utilization, and hospital stay.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pioneering the future of robotic liver surgery.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic liver resections (RLR) are increasingly being performed and has previously been considered more costly. The aim is to explore the cost of RLR compared with laparoscopic and open liver resection in a single National Health Service (NHS) hospital. A retrospective review of patients who underwent RLR, LLR, and OLR from April 2014 to December 2022 was conducted. The primary outcomes were the cost of consumables and median income, and the secondary outcomes were the overall length of stay and mortality at 90 days. Overall, 332 patients underwent liver resections. There were 204 males (61.4%) and 128 females (38.6%), with a median age of 62 years (IQR: 51-77 years). Of these, 60 patients (18.1%) underwent RLR, 21 patients (6.3%) underwent LLR, and 251 patients (75.6%) underwent OLR. Median consumables cost per case was £3863 (IQR: £3458-£5061) for RLR, £4326 (IQR: £4273-£4473) for LLR, and £4,084 (IQR: £3799-£5549) for the OLR cohort (p = 0.140). Median income per case was £7999 (IQR: £4509-£10,777) for RLR, £7497 (IQR: £2407-£14,576) for LLR, and £7493 (IQR: £2542-£14,121) for OLR. The median length of stay (LOS) for RLR was 3 days (IQR: 2-4.7 days) compared to 5 days for LLR (IQR: 4.5-7 days) and 6 days for OLR (IQR: 5-8 days, p < 0.001). Within the NHS, RLR has consumable costs comparable to OLR and LLR. It is also linked with a shorter LOS and generates similar income for patients undergoing OLR and 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.