Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40808590›Full record

ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2025

Evaluating Laparoscopic and Robotic Liver Resection in Elderly Patients: A NSQIP Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes.

Alessandro Parente, Kevin Verhoeff, Mohamed Elmasry, Blaire L Anderson, Khaled Z Dajani, Parthi Srinivasan, A M James Shapiro, Krishna V Menon

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Alessandro ParenteKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Institute of Liver Studies, London, UK.
Kevin VerhoeffDivision of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Mohamed ElmasryKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Institute of Liver Studies, London, UK.
Blaire L AndersonDivision of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Khaled Z DajaniDivision of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Parthi SrinivasanKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Institute of Liver Studies, London, UK.
A M James ShapiroDivision of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Krishna V MenonKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Institute of Liver Studies, London, UK.

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionResults of minimally invasive laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR) have been promising, but the benefits in the elderly patients are still unclear. This study aims to compare short-term outcomes of LLR and RLR in elderly patients.

methodsThe 2017-2021 NSQIP database was analyzed comparing patients ≥ 65 years old undergoing LLR versus RLR. Postoperative outcomes, factors associated with complications and mortality were assessed using propensity score matched (PSM) and multivariable logistic regression.

resultsWe analyzed 2,210 patients undergoing LLR (n = 1865,84.4%) and RLR (n = 345,15.6%). Patients undergoing LLR were older (72.4 vs. 71.8 years; p = 0.04) and more likely to have ASA 4 (11.1% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.001). RLR patients had shorter hospital stays (3.5 vs. 4.4 days; p < 0.001) but longer operative durations (221.4 vs. 203.5 min; p = 0.013). On adjusted analyses, RLR was not associated with increased odds of serious complications (OR: 0.82, CI95% 0.42-1.58, p = 0.545) or mortality (OR: 0.87, p = 0.851). After PSM, RLR statistically reduced length of stay (-0.72 days; p = 0.012) but increased operative times ( + 32.62 min; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis of patients ≥ 75 years confirmed consistent findings.

conclusionsRLR provides comparable safety and short-term outcomes to LLR, offering shorter hospital stays but longer operative durations. Findings support RLR as a viable option in elderly patients, but further studies evaluating long-term outcomes are warranted.

Indexed as

HepatectomyLaparoscopyLiver NeoplasmsPostoperative ComplicationsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLength of StayMaleOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcomeelderlyhepatectomylaparoscopic hepatectomylaparoscopic liver resectionrobotic hepatectomyrobotic liver resection

Identifiers

PMID40808590
PMCPMC12501916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.