ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
External validation of Tampa Difficulty Scoring System for robotic liver resection using Americas Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery Registry (AMILES).
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.
- Safety of robotic liver resection under antiplatelet therapy: a propensity score-matching study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- When the robot bleeds: risk factors and outcomes of intraoperative blood loss in robotic liver resection.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Advanced robotic liver surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Validation and applicability of the Tampa Difficulty Score for assessing procedural complexity in robotic liver surgery.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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe adoption of robotic hepatectomy continues to expand due to its technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy. The Tampa Difficulty Score (TDS) was the first scoring system designed specifically to predict the technical complexity of robotic hepatectomy and assist in preoperative planning. Following its internal validation, external validation is necessary to assess its accuracy and applicability across different institutions and patient populations. This study aimed to externally validate the TDS using data from the Americas Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery Registry (AMILES).
methodsWith Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, a retrospective analysis was conducted on AMILES registry patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy for liver tumors between 2019 and 2024. After excluding cases with missing data, 147 patients were analyzed using the TDS. Key clinical variables were compared across TDS groups, with data presented as frequency (%) and median (mean ± standard deviation). Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.
resultsPatients were stratified into four TDS groups: Group 1 (Less demanding, n = 19), Group 2 (Intermediate, n = 105), Group 3 (More demanding, n = 18), and Group 4 (Most demanding, n = 5). While demographic and preoperative variables were comparable, Child-Pugh scores trended higher with increasing TDS. Estimated blood loss varied significantly across the groups (p < 0.0003).
conclusionTDS effectively stratifies the complexity of robotic hepatectomy and correlates with intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Its external validation across North American institutions confirms its utility in preoperative planning and risk assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40991044What 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.