SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
A comparative meta-analysis and systematic review of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hemihepatectomy.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in hepatobiliary procedures: a scoping review.BMC surgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hepatectomy is a common surgical procedure in hepatobiliary surgery. Sufficient studies have proved that laparoscopic hemihepatectomy is not different from open surgery in terms of safety and reliability. However, there is a lack of high-level evidence on the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic and robot-assisted hemihepatectomy. Our aim is to compare the two surgical procedures through meta-analysis. After searching databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase, 8 articles that met the criteria were included. Then, the extracted data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3. A sensitivity analysis was performed to ensure the reliability of the results. This meta-analysis encompassed 1113 patients, of whom 579 were in the robot group and 534 in the laparoscopic group. The intraoperative blood loss in the robot group was less than that in the laparoscopic group, and the conversion rate to open surgery in the robot group was lower than that in the laparoscopic group. No differences were observed in operation time, hospital stay, complications, and intraoperative blood transfusion rate. The robotic approach can be safely employed in hemihepatectomy just as the laparoscopic approach can, and it has advantages in terms of intraoperative blood loss and the conversion rate to open surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40782131What 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.