ArticleAnnals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery2025
Is it time to define the scope of safety for robotic resection in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma surgery? A propensity score matching based analysis of a single center experience.
Article in Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines 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
- Robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and direct pairwise meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Transitioning to the robotic era for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: initial implementation and outcomes in a single center.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Backgrounds/Aims: Robotic surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is in the developmental and exploratory phase. The objective of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes and survival rates of robotic versus open resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma in a single center, and to determine the reliable scope of robotic interventions. Methods: A comparative analysis of outcomes from open and robotic resections at a single center was conducted using propensity score matching (PSM). The balance of covariates was assessed using standardized mean differences, and the robotic resection procedures adhered to the standards of open surgery. Results: PSM was effectively applied between 41 robotic and 82 open resections. No differences were observed in blood loss, overall and severe morbidity, 90-day mortality, or length of hospital stay. Robotic resections were longer but resulted in better immediate oncological outcomes. Median overall survival for the robotic and open groups was 44 and 30 months ( Conclusions: The robotic approach is comparable to open resection regarding immediate outcomes and survival in select patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. For patients with Bismuth type I and II tumors and early (stages I and II) TNM stages, robotic resection is a reliable treatment option when aligned with the principles of open surgery.
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.