ArticleAnnals of surgery2024
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Various Settings: An International Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study of 10.075 Patients.
Article in Annals of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 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
60 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for difficult posterosuperior segments: a systematic review with a meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- 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
- Robotic versus laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy: a post hoc analysis of the ROC'N'ROLL randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 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
- Perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted liver surgery: A comparison between patients with and without previous abdominal surgery.Surgery open science · 2026Article
- Feasibility and perioperative safety of robotic liver resection using the da Vinci SP system: early single-center case series.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Textbook outcome after robotic liver surgery at a high-volume Scandinavian HPB center: an IWATE-based difficulty-stratified assessment of 200 cases.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Article
- Implementation of a Robotic Liver Surgery Program in a Large Municipal Hospital: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Clinical, Economic, and Learning Curve Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Challenges and catalysators in building a robotic HPB program: the experience of a tertiary cancer center.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Emerging trends and outcomes in minimally invasive liver surgery: a population-based study in the Veneto region up to 2024 stratified by hospital case-volume.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in hepatobiliary procedures: a scoping review.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Conversion in Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery: The Impact of Conversion Urgency and Surgical Approach.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Single port robotic hepatectomy: an initial European experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Anatomic Liver Resection: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic hepatectomy across IWATE difficulty levels: a single-center experience of the first 100 cases.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Surgery in practice and science · 2026Review
- Robotic left lateral sectionectomy using the Hugo™ Robotic-Assisted Surgery system: a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
62 authors at 20 institutions in 15 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) in various settings.
backgroundClear advantages of RLS over LLS have rarely been demonstrated, and the associated costs of robotic surgery are generally higher than those of laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, the exact role of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery remains to be defined.
methodsIn this international retrospective cohort study, the outcomes of patients who underwent RLS and LLS for all indications between 2009 and 2021 in 34 hepatobiliary referral centers were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare both approaches across several types of procedures: (1) minor resections in the anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6) or (2) posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8), and (3) major resections (≥3 contiguous segments). Propensity score matching was used to mitigate the influence of selection bias. The primary outcome was textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS), previously defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥grade 2, postoperative bile leak ≥grade B, severe morbidity, readmission, and 90-day or in-hospital mortality with the presence of an R0 resection margin in case of malignancy. The absence of a prolonged length of stay was added to define TOLS+.
resultsAmong the 10.075 included patients, 1.507 underwent RLS and 8.568 LLS. After propensity score matching, both groups constituted 1.505 patients. RLS was associated with higher rates of TOLS (78.3% vs 71.8%, P < 0.001) and TOLS+ (55% vs 50.4%, P = 0.026), less Pringle usage (39.1% vs 47.1%, P < 0.001), blood loss (100 vs 200 milliliters, P < 0.001), transfusions (4.9% vs 7.9%, P = 0.003), conversions (2.7% vs 8.8%, P < 0.001), overall morbidity (19.3% vs 25.7%, P < 0.001), and microscopically irradical resection margins (10.1% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.015), and shorter operative times (190 vs 210 minutes, P = 0.015). In the subgroups, RLS tended to have higher TOLS rates, compared with LLS, for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments (n = 431 per group, 75.9% vs 71.2%, P = 0.184) and major resections (n = 321 per group, 72.9% vs 67.5%, P = 0.086), although these differences did not reach statistical significance.
conclusionsWhile both produce excellent outcomes, RLS might facilitate slightly higher TOLS rates than LLS.
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.