ReviewCancers2024
Robotic versus Laparoscopic Liver Resections for Colorectal Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Open, Laparoscopic and Robotic Liver Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer-A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of surgical oncology · 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
- Laparoscopic versus robotic surgery in the setting of combined resection of colorectal cancer and liver metastases: an experience from the I Go MILS registry.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Tracking Technological Change in Liver Surgery: Robotic Adoption and Case-Mix Evolution in the I Go MILS Registry.Cancers · 2026Article
- Safety of Simultaneous Robot-Assisted Resection of Colorectal Malignancy and Synchronous Liver Metastases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Robotic liver surgery for metastatic disease: A review of safety, feasibility, and outcomes.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Evaluating robotic and laparoscopic approaches for left and right colon carcinoma: a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic liver resection utilizing the ventral avascular area of the inferior vena cava: A retrospective cohort study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Evolution from laparoscopic to robotic radical resection for gallbladder cancer: a propensity score-matched comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Pioneering the future of robotic liver surgery.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2024Article
- The Current Role of Single-Site Robotic Approach in Liver Resection: A Systematic Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide, and the liver is the most common localization of metastatic disease. The incidence of minimally invasive liver surgery is increasing, and robotic surgery (RLR) is believed to overcome some limitations of a laparoscopic approach (LRL). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of operative and short-term oncologic outcomes of the laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted liver resection for colorectal liver metastases. An online search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases was performed. Eight studies involving 3210 patients were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. In the LRL group, a higher conversion to open rate (12.4%) was observed compared to the RLR (6.7%;
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.