Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38911657›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2024

Robotic Assistance in Percutaneous Liver Ablation Therapies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ana K Uribe Rivera, Barbara Seeliger, Laurent Goffin, Alain García-Vázquez, Didier Mutter, Mariano E Giménez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. [Ultrasound technology's new application in the diagnosis and treatment of liver cancer].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Recent Advances in Ablative Therapies for HCC.Journal of clinical and experimental hepatology
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ana K Uribe RiveraFrom the IHU-Strasbourg, Institute of Image-Guided Surgery, Strasbourg, France.
Barbara SeeligerFrom the IHU-Strasbourg, Institute of Image-Guided Surgery, Strasbourg, France.
Laurent GoffinICube, UMR 7357 CNRS, INSERM U1328 RODIN, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Alain García-VázquezFrom the IHU-Strasbourg, Institute of Image-Guided Surgery, Strasbourg, France.
Didier MutterFrom the IHU-Strasbourg, Institute of Image-Guided Surgery, Strasbourg, France.
Mariano E GiménezFrom the IHU-Strasbourg, Institute of Image-Guided Surgery, Strasbourg, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to identify current robotic assistance systems for percutaneous liver ablations, compare approaches, and determine how to achieve standardization of procedural concepts for optimized ablation outcomes. Background: Image-guided surgical approaches are increasingly common. Assistance by navigation and robotic systems allows to optimize procedural accuracy, with the aim to consistently obtain adequate ablation volumes. Methods: Several databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, ProQuest, Science Direct, Research Rabbit, and IEEE Xplore) were systematically searched for robotic preclinical and clinical percutaneous liver ablation studies, and relevant original manuscripts were included according to the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The endpoints were the type of device, insertion technique (freehand or robotic), planning, execution, and confirmation of the procedure. A meta-analysis was performed, including comparative studies of freehand and robotic techniques in terms of radiation dose, accuracy, and Euclidean error. Results: The inclusion criteria were met by 33/755 studies. There were 24 robotic devices reported for percutaneous liver surgery. The most used were the MAXIO robot (8/33; 24.2%), Zerobot, and AcuBot (each 2/33, 6.1%). The most common tracking system was optical (25/33, 75.8%). In the meta-analysis, the robotic approach was superior to the freehand technique in terms of individual radiation (0.5582, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.0167-1.0996, dose-length product range 79-2216 mGy.cm), accuracy (0.6260, 95% CI = 0.1423-1.1097), and Euclidean error (0.8189, 95% CI = -0.1020 to 1.7399). Conclusions: Robotic assistance in percutaneous ablation for liver tumors achieves superior results and reduces errors compared with manual applicator insertion. Standardization of concepts and reporting is necessary and suggested to facilitate the comparison of the different parameters used to measure liver ablation results. The increasing use of image-guided surgery has encouraged robotic assistance for percutaneous liver ablations. This systematic review analyzed 33 studies and identified 24 robotic devices, with optical tracking prevailing. The meta-analysis favored robotic assessment, showing increased accuracy and reduced errors compared with freehand technique, emphasizing the need for conceptual standardization.

Indexed as

accuracyEuclidean errorminimally invasive liver ablationnavigation systemsrobotic percutaneous liver ablation

Identifiers

PMID38911657
PMCPMC11191991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.