Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40151473›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental hepatology

Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy.

Guhan Venkatakrishnan, Krishnanunni Nair, Binoj S Pillai Thankamony Amma, Christi T Varghese, Shweta Mallick, Sudhindran Surendran

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical and experimental hepatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Robotic-Assisted Vascular Surgery: A Clinical Perspective.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2025
    Review
  3. Technique Matters! Evolving Techniques in Liver Transplantation.Journal of clinical and experimental hepatology
    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.

Guhan VenkatakrishnanDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Solid Organ Transplantation, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita University, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Krishnanunni NairDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Solid Organ Transplantation, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita University, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Binoj S Pillai Thankamony AmmaDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Solid Organ Transplantation, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita University, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Christi T VargheseDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Solid Organ Transplantation, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita University, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Shweta MallickDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Solid Organ Transplantation, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita University, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Sudhindran SurendranDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Solid Organ Transplantation, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita University, Kochi, Kerala, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH) involves either laparoscopic or robot-assisted technique, with the graft being retrieved through a remote incision. Current evidence reports faster recovery and better quality of life following MIDH than open donor hepatectomy, although these are limited to a handful of high-volume transplant centers. Nonetheless, grafts obtained by MIDH have a slight disadvantage of having shorter vein lengths than its open counterpart. Additionally, biliary complications are more prevalent in recipients of grafts retrieved by laparoscopic technique, while those obtained by the robotic platform demonstrate biliary complication rates comparable to, or even better than, those from open donor hepatectomy. Widespread application of MIDH has still not occurred across the world. This narrative review explores the challenges faced by the transplant surgeons when transitioning from open donor hepatectomy to MIDH, standard technique of robotic donor hepatectomy and suggests strategies to overcome the learning curve. It compares laparoscopic and robotic donor hepatectomies, detailing the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, as well as their outcomes.

Indexed as

laparoscopic donor hepatectomyliving donor liver transplantationminimally invasive surgical proceduresrobotic donor hepatectomy

Identifiers

PMID40151473
PMCPMC11938047

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.