ArticleHepatology international2024
Efficacy and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.
Article in Hepatology international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for benign liver diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- A meta-analytic and systematic review to compare perioperative outcomes and prognosis between robotic and conventional (laparoscopic or open) liver resection in hepatocellular carcinoma cases.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Assessment of the learning curve of robotic liver resection using complexity-adjusted CUSUM analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic or Open Liver Resection Versus Multibipolar Radiofrequency Ablation of HCC Within Milan Criteria on Cirrhosis.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2026Article
- Robotic Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- Feasibility of robotic liver resection compared with laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Robotic vs laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: multicentric propensity-score matched analysis of surgical and oncologic outcomes in 647 patients.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based radiomic and deep learning models for predicting Ki-67 risk stratification in hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of hepatology · 2025Article
- SEX DIFFERENCES IN SEPSIS-RELATED ACUTE RESPIRATORY DISTRESS SYNDROME AND OTHER SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES AMONG CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS WITH SEPSIS: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY IN CHINA.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2025Observational
- Surgical treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma in era of multidisciplinary strategies.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Machine learning-driven prediction of intratumoral tertiary lymphoid structures in hepatocellular carcinoma using contrast-enhanced CT imaging and integrated clinical data.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- The First Report on Liver Resection Using the Novel Japanese hinotori™ Surgical Robot System: First Case Series Report of 10 Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvidence concerning long-term outcome of robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients is scarce.
methodsThis study enrolled all patients who underwent RLR and LLR for resectable HCC between July 2016 and July 2021. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to create a 1:3 match between the RLR and LLR groups. A comprehensive collection and analysis of patient data regarding efficacy and safety have been conducted, along with the evaluation of the learning curve for RLR.
resultsFollowing PSM, a total of 341 patients were included, with 97 in the RLR group and 244 in the LLR group. RLR group demonstrated a significantly longer operative time (median [IQR], 210 [152.0-298.0] min vs. 183.5 [132.3-263.5] min; p = 0.04), with no significant differences in other perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes. Overall survival (OS) was similar between the two groups (p = 0.43), but RLR group exhibited improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) (median of 65 months vs. 56 months, p = 0.006). The estimated 5-year OS for RLR and LLR were 74.8% (95% CI: 65.4-85.6%) and 80.7% (95% CI: 74.0-88.1%), respectively. The estimated 5-year RFS for RLR and LLR were 58.6% (95% CI: 48.6-70.6%) and 38.3% (95% CI: 26.4-55.9%), respectively. In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, RLR (HR: 0.586, 95% CI (0.393-0.874), p = 0.008) emerged as an independent predictor of reducing recurrence rates and enhanced RFS. The operative learning curve indicates that approximately after the 11th case, the learning curve of RLR stabilized and entered a proficient phase.
conclusionsOS was comparable between RLR and LLR, and while RFS was improved in the RLR group. RLR demonstrates oncological effectiveness and safety for resectable HCC.
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.