ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic versus open liver resection: comparison of postoperative outcomes according to the IWATE difficulty score.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- When the robot bleeds: risk factors and outcomes of intraoperative blood loss in robotic liver resection.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic versus open hepatectomy for IWATE expert-level liver resection: a risk-adjusted comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Tracking Technological Change in Liver Surgery: Robotic Adoption and Case-Mix Evolution in the I Go MILS Registry.Cancers · 2026Article
- Robotic hepatectomy across IWATE difficulty levels: a single-center experience of the first 100 cases.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic transanastomotic stenting via Witzel technique in complex hepaticojejunostomy for biliary tract tumors.Surgical endoscopy · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) has become increasingly established, yet the relative benefits of laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) compared with open liver resection (OLR) across different levels of surgical difficulty remain debated. This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of RLR, LLR, and OLR stratified by the IWATE difficulty score.
methodsAll consecutive patients undergoing elective liver resection between April 2018 and December 2024 at a high-volume hepatobiliary center were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained database. Patients were stratified into low/intermediate (IWATE 0-6) and advanced/expert (IWATE 7-12) groups. Multivariable regression and interaction term analyses were performed to adjust for confounders and assess the modifying effect of surgical difficulty.
resultsA total of 686 patients were included: 425 (62%) underwent LLR, 101 (15%) RLR, and 160 (23%) OLR. Of these, 400 (58%) were advanced/expert resections. Minimally invasive approaches were associated with significantly reduced blood loss, morbidity, and length of stay compared with OLR across all IWATE levels. In advanced/expert resections, RLR provided the greatest benefit, with lower major complications (8% vs. 17% LLR vs. 23% OLR) and shorter length of stay (median 6 vs. 9 days OLR). Multivariable analyses confirmed these findings, with both LLR (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10-0.55) and RLR (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06-1.00) independently associated with reduced major complications compared to OLR. Interaction analyses demonstrated that the comparative advantage of RLR was most pronounced in advanced/expert resections, while LLR showed particular efficiency in low/intermediate cases.
conclusionBoth LLR and RLR are safe and effective across all levels of surgical difficulty. RLR, however, offers distinct advantages in technically demanding advanced and expert cases. These findings reinforce the role of MILS as the preferred standard and highlight the importance of tailoring the surgical approach to case complexity.
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.