Trial reportAnnals of surgery2026
Intermittent Inflow Occlusion in Robotic Right Donor Hepatectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Annals of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intermittent inflow occlusion during robotic donor hepatectomy: technical refinement in a high-stakes operation through a randomized controlled trial.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Robotic right living donor hepatectomy with intermittent inflow occlusion: true clinical benefit or just another chapter in the ischemic preconditioning story?Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of intermittent inflow occlusion (IIO) during robotic right donor hepatectomy (RDH) for adult living donor liver transplantation.
backgroundAlthough evidence supports minimally invasive donor hepatectomy, its adoption by surgeons remains limited. Key challenges include bleeding during parenchymal transection and prolonged warm ischemia during graft extraction, resulting in morbidity in both the donor and recipient.
methodsBetween April 2022 and June 2023, out of 123 donors suitable for RDH, 113 were randomized to undergo robotic RDH with (n=56) or without (n=57) IIO. The primary endpoint was the blood loss during robotic RDH. The secondary end points included peak levels of bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, international normalized ratio, and complications in donors and recipients. In addition, peak lactate levels and the need for blood transfusion were assessed in donors.
resultsThe mean duration of IIO was 42.48±11.21 minutes. Blood loss during parenchymal transection [235 (186.25-375) vs 295 (235-475), P =0.006] and total blood loss [275 (212.5-430) vs. 330 (272.5-520), P =0.018] were significantly lower among donors in the IIO arm. In recipients belonging to the IIO arm, peak alanine aminotransferase ( P =0.032) and international normalized ratio ( P =0.012) were significantly low. Although statistically similar, the peak aspartate aminotransferase ( P =0.064) and acute kidney injury ( P =0.061) in the IIO arm among recipients were also lower. Other perioperative outcomes, including complications in donors/recipients and overall mortality in recipients, remained comparable.
conclusionsIIO during robotic RDH is safe. It led to reduced blood loss among donors and improved graft parameters in recipients during the immediate postoperative period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40255151What 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.