Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40386601›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2025

Four clamp-crush techniques in robotic hepatectomy (with video).

Koji Kikuchi, Hiroyuki Nitta, Akira Umemura, Hirokatsu Katagiri, Shoji Kanno, Daiki Takeda, Taro Ando, Satoshi Amano, Toma Kawashima, Taku Kimura and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Koji KikuchiDepartment of Surgery, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4203-8149
Hiroyuki NittaDepartment of Surgery, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.
Akira UmemuraDepartment of Surgery, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.
Hirokatsu KatagiriDepartment of Surgery, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.
Shoji KannoDepartment of Surgery, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.
Daiki TakedaDepartment of Surgery, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.
Taro AndoDepartment of Surgery, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.
Satoshi AmanoDepartment of Surgery, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.
Toma KawashimaDepartment of Surgery, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.
Taku KimuraDepartment of Surgery, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.
Hiroaki ShimadaDepartment of Surgery, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.
Akihito JoDepartment of Surgery, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.
Akira SasakiDepartment of Surgery, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, reports of robotic hepatectomies have increased. In a laparoscopic hepatectomy, various energy devices are used for parenchymal transections, especially the clamp-crush method and the Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA) system are popular; however, there is no CUSA that can be operated from the robot console. We believe that conventional clamp-crush method can be classified into four categories and have tried to verbalize them. We aim to explain the four types of clamp-crush techniques of robotic hepatectomy that we have performed and to assess their outcomes, safety, and feasibility. The data of patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy at Iwate Medical University Hospital between June 2022 and April 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. For comparison, 298 patients who underwent pure laparoscopic hepatectomy at Iwate Medical University Hospital between January 2014 and December 2020 were enrolled and analyzed. Our four clamp-crush techniques (Clamp, Peck, Open, Sweep) are demonstrated in the video clips provided with our study's electronic data. In the present study, 58 patients were included. In 27 cases (46.6%), a limited resection was performed; in 9 cases (15.5%), a subsegmentectomy; in 15 cases (25.9%), a sectionectomy; and in 7 cases (12.1%), a hemihepatectomy. The mean operative time was 205.9±90.5 min, and the mean intraoperative blood loss was 103.1±200.7 mL. There were no cases of conversion to a laparotomy. In comparison with laparoscopic hepatectomies, there were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes. The present findings indicate that robotic hepatectomies are safe and feasible in high-volume specialized centers with a team experienced in laparoscopic liver surgeries. It is possible to transition from laparoscopic hepatectomy to robotic hepatectomy without stress due to the fact that the same four clamp-crush techniques that are used in laparoscopic hepatectomy, which can be done in a robotic hepatectomy.

Indexed as

clamp-crushhepatectomyliver resectionminimally invasive surgery (MIS)Robotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID40386601
PMCPMC12078807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.