SynthesisJournal of surgical oncology2025
Comparing Open, Laparoscopic and Robotic Liver Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer-A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- From IDEAL learning curve to team maturation: a decade of experience reducing conversion in laparoscopic liver resection.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic versus robotic surgery in the setting of combined resection of colorectal cancer and liver metastases: an experience from the I Go MILS registry.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Tracking Technological Change in Liver Surgery: Robotic Adoption and Case-Mix Evolution in the I Go MILS Registry.Cancers · 2026Article
- Surgical Resection of a Giant Hepatocellular Carcinoma in an 89-Year-Old Patient with Multiple Comorbidities: The Role of Frailty Assessment and Preoperative Optimisation-A Case Report and Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Robotic liver surgery: a global snapshot. Results from an international survey.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Effect of unplanned conversion to open surgery on resection margins and postoperative complications in minimally-invasive resection of colorectal liver metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2026Article
- Letter to the Editor on: "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
- Study - International multicentric minimally invasive liver resection (SIMMILR-4) : a comparison of conventional, digitally enhanced and collaborative robotic with Tele-robotic laparoscopic surgery for colorectal liver metastases.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Robotic liver surgery for metastatic disease: A review of safety, feasibility, and outcomes.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) can be surgically managed through open resections (OLR), laparoscopic resections (LLR), or robotic liver resections (RLR). However, there is ongoing uncertainty regarding the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive approaches like LLR and RLR. This study aims to clarify these issues by conducting a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare outcomes across OLR, LLR and RLR for patients with CRLM. Following the PRISMA-NMA guidelines, the meta-analysis included 13 studies with a combined total of 6582 patients. Of these, 50.6% underwent LLR, 45.3% underwent OLR, and 4.1% underwent RLR. The analysis found no significant differences in R0 resection rates between LLR (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84-1.26) and RLR (OR 1.57, 95% CI: 0.98-2.51) when compared to OLR. Additionally, there were no significant differences in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) at 1, 3, and 5 years. Despite these findings, both LLR and RLR were associated with reduced postoperative complication rates (RLR: OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.32-0.86; LLR: OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.37-0.68). However, patients undergoing LLR were more likely to require conversion to open surgery compared to those undergoing RLR (OR: 12.46, 95% CI: 2.64-58.67). Furthermore, RLR was associated with a reduced need for blood transfusions (OR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.05-0.32), and LLR resulted in shorter hospital stays (mean difference: -6.66 days, 95% CI: -11.6 to -1.88 days). This study demonstrates the oncological safety of LLR and RLR approaches for CRLM relative to OLR, with enhanced perioperative outcomes anticipated following minimally invasive resections of CRLM.
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.