SynthesisMedicine2025
An updated meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopy hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy in the treatment of liver tumors.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraoperative doppler ultrasonography to assess the need for remnant liver fixation.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Evolution of minimally invasive surgery in gallbladder carcinoma: maintaining oncological radicality and the enduring value of open resection.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in hepatobiliary procedures: a scoping review.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Current status and future perspectives of minimally invasive liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma.Journal of liver cancer · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy (RALH) with laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in the treatment of liver tumors.
methodsA comprehensive search of English-language literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to June 2024. Studies comparing RALH and LH for liver tumors were identified, and after qualitative evaluation, a meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 software.
resultsAfter applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42 articles were included, including 29,969 patients, with 5673 in the RALH group and 24,296 in the LH group. The meta-analysis showed that compared with the LH group, surgery time was longer in the RALH group (MD = 55.33; 95% CI: 34.84-75.83; P < .001), the conversion to open surgery rate was higher (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.05; P < .001), the total cost was higher (MD = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.14-0.73; P = .004), and the tumor diameter was larger (MD = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.24-0.49; P < .001). Additionally, the R1 resection rate was higher in the RALH group (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.06; P < .001). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative transfusion rate, hepatic hilar occlusion rate, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, mortality rate, malignancy rate, or R0 resection rate (P > .05).
conclusionBased on current evidence, RALH is safe and effective, although it is associated with higher total costs, increased blood transfusion rates, and longer operative times. However, there were no significant differences between RALH and LH in terms of other outcome indicators, suggesting that both procedures offer similar surgical efficacy and safety. Further clinical randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.
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.