ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Cost-effectiveness and clinical impact of robotic-assisted hepatectomy.
Article in Journal of robotic 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.
- Economic impact of robotic liver resection: systematic review of costs, resource utilization, and hospital stay.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Internal validation of the Tampa Robotic Difficulty Scoring System: real-time assessment of the novel robotic scoring system in predicting financial costs of hepatectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
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
Robotic-assisted hepatectomy has gained traction in hepatobiliary surgery, but its cost-effectiveness compared to traditional surgical approaches remains unclear. This study investigates clinical outcomes and financial implications of robotic-assisted liver surgery in a high-volume center, comparing it with open and laparoscopic methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients undergoing hepatectomy at Lille University Hospital in 2018 and 2021, performed by the institution's first experienced robotic hepatobiliary surgeon. Data on patient demographics, intraoperative details, postoperative outcomes, and costs were analyzed. Costs included hospital stays, surgical materials, and complications, derived from national cost studies. A total of 111 patients were included, with a rise in minimally invasive procedures from 47.5% in 2018 to 75% in 2021. Robotic-assisted hepatectomy was associated with reduced hospital stays, lower complication rates, and fewer severe morbidities compared to laparotomy. The average cost per procedure (all surgical approaches combined) decreased from €12,169 in 2018 to €8,513 in 2021, with robotic surgery offering a significant financial advantage. The total savings for the 71 patients in the 2021 cohort was €259,576, driven primarily by reduced hospitalization times and fewer complications. Robotic-assisted hepatectomy is clinically safe and cost-effective, offering substantial financial savings over traditional surgery. The reduction in postoperative complications and hospital stay durations, particularly for complex cases, highlights the advantages of robotic surgery in hepatobiliary procedures. As surgical expertise increases, robotic surgery represents a sustainable and efficient alternative in liver resection.
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.