SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Comparison of efficacy between robotic and open hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic versus open surgery for gallbladder cancer: a meta-analysis of propensity-score-matched studies.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Extracorporeal Albumin Dialysis (OPAL) as Novel Therapeutic Bridging Option in Posthepatectomy Liver Failure.Artificial organs · 2026Article
- Robotic liver resection in minimally invasive expert centers is associated with a very low rate of bile leakage: results from a national multicenter cohort.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
- Anaesthesiological and perioperative aspects of fully robotic versus open liver transplantation: a matched case-control study.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis evaluates and contrasts the diagnosis and perioperative results involving RLR (robotic liver resection) and open OLR (open liver resection). The researcher used systematic search criteria of databases including MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library for relevant literature published between January 2000 and January 2025. Eight non-randomized controlled trials were included, each using propensity score matching (PSM), involving 1192 patients. Among them, 557 patients received robotic laparoscopic resection (RLR), while 635 patients underwent open laparoscopic resection (OLR). Undergoing RLR was found to lead to longer surgical times, according to the analysis; however, patients undergoing RLR experienced notably shorter hospital stays compared to those undergoing open liver resection. No significant variations were noted regarding blood loss between the groups, incidence of bile leakage, complication rates, R0 resection margins, or 90-day mortality. RLR demonstrates surgical results similar to those of OLR. Key advantages include shorter hospitalization times and lower complication rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40237917What 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.