ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental hepatology
Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy.
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.
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.
- Minimally invasive liver transplantation: technical evolution, evidence maturity, and translational boundaries.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic-Assisted Vascular Surgery: A Clinical Perspective.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2025Review
- Technique Matters! Evolving Techniques in Liver Transplantation.Journal of clinical and experimental hepatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.