ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Comparison of robot-assisted, open, and laparoscopic-assisted surgery for cholangiocarcinoma: a network meta-analysis.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Review
- Robotic Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Robotic-assisted surgery improves short-term outcomes of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a referral-center cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted, laparoscopic-assisted and open surgery in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma, and to evaluate the clinical effect of three surgical methods in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma by network Meta-analysis.
methodsA systematical retrieval in PubMed and Web of Science was performed for relative literature on the effects of robot-assisted(RA), laparoscopy-assisted(LA), and open surgery(OA) for cholangiocarcinoma in treating cholangiocarcinoma. A literature search updated to September 1st, 2024, was performed.
resultsStudies have shown that the length of R0 resection, complication rate, 30-day mortality, Transfusion rate, Lymph Node Metastasis Rate, and hospital stay in RA are superior to LA and open surgery. The relative effectiveness of the three surgical methods in terms of operation time were: open surgery, laparoscope-assisted surgery, and robot-assisted surgery, and there was no significant difference among the three groups.
conclusionRobot-assisted surgery is safe and feasible in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma, but more clinical evidence is needed to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39514036What 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.