ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluation of the outcomes of biliary-enteric reconstruction in robotic radical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a single-center propensity score matching analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Continuous vs. interrupted suturing in hepaticojejunostomy: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a concise systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Transitioning to the robotic era for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: initial implementation and outcomes in a single center.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Advanced robotic liver surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Robotic-assisted surgery improves short-term outcomes of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a referral-center cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
- Essential Updates 2023/2024: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Biliary Tract Cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Current insights and future perspectives of treatment strategies for biliary tract cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Review
- Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic operation in hilar cholangiocarcinoma patients: a case control study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Feasibility and safety of robotic radical resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma in highly selected patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025Review
- Is it time to define the scope of safety for robotic resection in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma surgery? A propensity score matching based analysis of a single center experience.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic liver resection utilizing the ventral avascular area of the inferior vena cava: A retrospective cohort study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Comparison of robot-assisted, open, and laparoscopic-assisted surgery for cholangiocarcinoma: a network meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although robotic radical resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) has been reported in some large hepatobiliary centers, biliary-enteric reconstruction (BER) remains a critical step that hampers the operation's success. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and quality of BER in robotic radical resection of HCCA and propose technical recommendations. A retrospective study was conducted on patients with HCCA who underwent minimally invasive radical resection at Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital between January 2016 and July 2023. A 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM), widely used to reduce selection bias, was performed to evaluate the outcomes, especially BER-related data, between the robotic and laparoscopic surgery. Forty-six patients with HCCA were enrolled; ten underwent robotic-assisted resection, while the others underwent laparoscopic surgery. After PSM at a ratio of 1:2, 10 and 20 patients were assigned to the robot-assisted and laparoscopic groups, respectively. The baseline characteristics of both groups were generally well-balanced. The average liver resection time was longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (139.5 ± 38.8 vs 108.1 ± 35.8 min, P = 0.036). However, the former had less intraoperative blood loss [200 (50-500) vs 310 (100-850) ml], despite no statistical difference (P = 0.109). The number of residual bile ducts was 2.6 ± 1.3 and 2.7 ± 1.2 (P = 0.795), and anastomoses were both 1.6 ± 0.7 in the two groups (P = 0.965). The time of BER was 38.4 ± 13.6 and 59.1 ± 25.5 min (P = 0.024), accounting for 9.9 ± 2.8% and 15.4 ± 4.8% of the total operation time (P = 0.001). Although postoperative bile leakage incidence in laparoscopic group (40%) was higher than that in robotic group (10%), there was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.204); 6.7 ± 4.4 and 12.1 ± 11.7 days were observed for tube drawing (P = 0.019); anastomosis stenosis and calculus rate was 10% and 30% (P = 0.372), 0% and 15% (P = 0.532), respectively. Neither group had hemorrhage- or bile leakage-related deaths. Robotic radical resection for HCCA may offer perioperative outcomes comparable to conventional laparoscopic procedures and tends to be advantageous in terms of anastomosis time and quality. We are optimistic about its wide application in the future with the improvement of surgical techniques and experience.
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.