SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024
Robotic-assisted radical resection versus open surgery for cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Minimally invasive liver surgery for perihilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- From scalpel to console: a bibliometric and knowledge-mapping analysis of robot-assisted cholangiocarcinoma surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted resection and open surgery for cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for studies comparing treatment for CCA, covering the period from database inception to January 30, 2024. Two researchers will independently screen literature and extract data, followed by meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3 software. A total of 5 articles with 513 patients were finally included. Among them, 231 in the robotic group, and 282 in the open group. The Meta-analysis revealed that the robotic group had a significant advantage in terms of intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 101.44, 95% CI - 135.73 to - 67.15, P < 0.05), lymph node harvest(MD = 1.03, 95% CI 0.30- 1.76, P < 0.05) and length of hospital stay(MD = - 1.92, 95% CI - 2.87 to- 0.97, P < 0.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of transfusion rate (OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.31-1.23, P > 0.05), R0 resection (OR = 1.49, 95% CI 0.89- 2.50, P > 0.05), 30-day mortality (OR = 1.68, 95% CI 0.43-6.65, P > 0.05) and complications (OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.30- 1.95, P > 0.05). Robotic-assisted radical resection for CCA is feasible and safe, and its long-term efficacy and oncological outcomes need to be confirmed by further studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38713337What 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.