ArticleChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[500 minimally invasive liver resections-Experiences, results and technical developments of a high-volume center].
Article in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2026. 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.
- Implementation of a Robotic Liver Surgery Program in a Large Municipal Hospital: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Clinical, Economic, and Learning Curve Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive liver surgery has rapidly evolved in recent years. In addition to the laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), robot-assisted liver resection (RLR) is increasingly gaining in importance; however, although the robotic-assisted approach offers clinical benefits, particularly in complex procedures, it remains a matter of debate.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to present the development, perioperative outcomes, key challenges, and insights from over 500 minimally invasive liver resections performed at a specialized high-volume center. It focused on the comparison between LLR and RLR based on the IWATE difficulty score. MATERIAL AND
methodsA retrospective single-center analysis of 526 consecutive elective minimally invasive liver resections (2018-2024) was conducted. All cases were stratified using the IWATE score. The LLR and RLR were compared in terms of operative parameters, conversion rate and postoperative complications. Additionally, the annual procedural development was analyzed.
resultsThe RLR was established in 2021 and accounted for over 50% of all minimally invasive liver resections by 2024. Compared to LLR, RLR was associated with significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss as well as lower conversion and complication rates, particularly in technically demanding resections. Despite an increasing proportion of advanced/expert resections, the rate of major complications could be reduced over time.
conclusionMinimally invasive liver resections can be safely performed at high-volume centers. The robotic-assisted technique offers specific advantages especially in complex resections, with respect to complication rates, reduced conversion rates and decreased blood loss. A key success factor in the implementation of robotic liver surgery is the pre-existing expertise in laparoscopic techniques, which significantly shortened the learning curve. The use of standardized techniques such as the scissor hepatectomy may have contributed to the comparatively low rate of bile leaks observed in RLR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.