ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Robotic Versus Open Placement of Hepatic Artery Infusion Pumps.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges and catalysators in building a robotic HPB program: the experience of a tertiary cancer center.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Hepatic Artery Infusion Chemotherapy for Cholangiocarcinoma in 2025.Liver cancer · 2026Review
- Neoadjuvant Strategies for Patients with Resectable Biliary Tract Cancers: A Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA growing number of centers offer hepatic artery infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy for advanced liver malignancies. While small series have demonstrated feasibility of robotic HAIP placement, comparison of outcomes with open placement is lacking. We compared outcomes after robotic versus open HAIP placement.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed HAIP placement without concurrent hepatectomy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 1 January 2011 to 15 September 2022, and Duke Health from 1 November 2018 to 18 May 2023. Patients with prior liver surgery or who required catheterization of a non-standard vessel were excluded. Propensity score matching weights (PSMW) were calculated using age, sex, race, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, colorectal procedure, and institution. Survey-weighted generalized linear models assessed the relationship between approach and outcomes.
resultsOf 2002 consecutive HAIP placements, 819 (645 open/174 robotic) met the inclusion criteria. A higher proportion of open procedures involved combined colorectal procedures; other patient characteristics were similar. Overall, 15% of patients experienced an HAIP-specific complication and 12% required re-intervention; 2.7% had HAIP failure ≤ 90 days. After PSMW, the robotic approach had a longer operative time (β = 68 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 55-81, p < 0.001) but shorter length of stay (β = - 1.8 days, 95% CI - 2.3 to 1.3, p < 0.001). The robotic approach was associated with increased HAIP-specific complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.72, p = 0.025) and re-intervention (OR 2.33, p < 0.001), with no difference in time to initiation of HAIP chemotherapy or HAIP failure.
conclusionsRobotic HAIP placement was associated with increased postoperative complications and significantly shorter length of stay, with similar time to initiation of HAIP therapy. There was no difference in the rate of early HAIP failure versus the open approach. These results suggest robotic HAIP placement is feasible and effective.
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.