Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38937559›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Evaluation of the outcomes of biliary-enteric reconstruction in robotic radical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a single-center propensity score matching analysis.

Jie Liu, Changwei Dou, Jian Chen, Yi Lu, Lei Liang, Fangqiang Wei, Chengwu Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Advanced robotic liver surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026
    Review
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

7 authors.

Jie LiuGeneral Surgery, Department of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Cancer Center, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College), Hangzhou, 310014, Zhejiang, China.
Changwei DouGeneral Surgery, Department of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Cancer Center, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College), Hangzhou, 310014, Zhejiang, China.
Jian ChenGeneral Surgery, Department of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Cancer Center, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College), Hangzhou, 310014, Zhejiang, China.
Yi LuGeneral Surgery, Department of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Cancer Center, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College), Hangzhou, 310014, Zhejiang, China.
Lei LiangGeneral Surgery, Department of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Cancer Center, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College), Hangzhou, 310014, Zhejiang, China.
Fangqiang WeiGeneral Surgery, Department of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Cancer Center, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College), Hangzhou, 310014, Zhejiang, China.
Chengwu ZhangGeneral Surgery, Department of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Cancer Center, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College), Hangzhou, 310014, Zhejiang, China. zcwzry@163.com.

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province LY21H160050Zhejiang Medical and Health Department Project 2023KY487Zhejiang Traditional Chinese Medicine Science and Technology Project 2020ZA014
6 · The paper itself

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

Bile Duct NeoplasmsLaparoscopyPropensity ScoreRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedFemaleHumansKlatskin TumorMaleMiddle AgedPlastic Surgery ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBiliary-enteric reconstructionHilar cholangiocarcinomaLaparoscopicPropensity score matchingRobotic

Identifiers

PMID38937559
PMCPMC11211424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.