Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39347959›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024

Internal validation of the Tampa Robotic Difficulty Scoring System: real-time assessment of the novel robotic scoring system in predicting clinical outcomes after hepatectomy.

Tara M Pattilachan, Maria Christodoulou, Sharona B Ross, Gowtham Lingamaneni, Alexander Rosemurgy, Iswanto Sucandy

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Robotic Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Tara M PattilachanHepatopancreatobiliary and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Digestive Health Institute Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite #500, Tampa, USA.
Maria ChristodoulouHepatopancreatobiliary and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Digestive Health Institute Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite #500, Tampa, USA.
Sharona B RossHepatopancreatobiliary and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Digestive Health Institute Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite #500, Tampa, USA.
Gowtham LingamaneniHepatopancreatobiliary and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Digestive Health Institute Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite #500, Tampa, USA.
Alexander RosemurgyHepatopancreatobiliary and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Digestive Health Institute Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite #500, Tampa, USA.
Iswanto SucandyHepatopancreatobiliary and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Digestive Health Institute Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite #500, Tampa, USA. Iswanto.Sucandy@adventhealth.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2167-3215

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAs the robotic approach in hepatectomy gains prominence, the need to establish a robotic-specific difficulty scoring system (DSS) is evident. The Tampa Difficulty Score was conceived to bridge this gap, offering a novel and dedicated robotic DSS aimed at improving preoperative surgical planning and predicting potential clinical challenges in robotic hepatectomies. In this study, we internally validated the recently published Tampa DSS by applying the scoring system to our most recent cohort of patients.

methodsThe Tampa Difficulty Score was applied to 170 recent patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy in our center. Patients were classified into: Group 1 (score 1-8, n = 23), Group 2 (score 9-24, n = 120), Group 3 (score 25-32, n = 20), and Group 4 (score 33-49, n = 7). Key variables for each of the groups were analyzed and compared. Statistical significance was accepted at p ≤ 0.05.

resultsNotable correlations were found between the Tampa Difficulty Score and key clinical parameters such as operative duration (p < 0.0001), estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001), and percentage of major resection (p = 0.00007), affirming the score's predictive capacity for operative technical complexity. The Tampa Difficulty Score also correlated with major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) (p < 0.0001), length of stay (p = 0.011), and 30-day readmission (p = 0.046) after robotic hepatectomy.

conclusionsThe Tampa Difficulty Score, through the internal validation process, has confirmed its effectiveness in predicting intra- and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy. The predictive capacity of this system is useful in preoperative surgical planning and risk categorization. External validation is necessary to further explore the accuracy of this robotic DSS.

Indexed as

HepatectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedBlood Loss, SurgicalFemaleHumansLength of StayLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopic difficulty scoring systemRobotic difficulty scoring systemRobotic hepatectomy difficulty levelRobotic liver resectionTampa difficulty score validation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.