SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2025
A meta-analytic and systematic review to compare perioperative outcomes and prognosis between robotic and conventional (laparoscopic or open) liver resection in hepatocellular carcinoma cases.
Synthesis in World 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 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.
- Impact of robotic approach on total operating room time and surgical workflow in minimally invasive liver resection (TAKUMI-8).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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHepatectomy can be performed via laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), open liver resection (OLR), and robotic liver resection (RLR). However, the advantages of RLR over LLR and OLR with respect to the prognosis and perioperative outcomes of individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain unclear. This study was designed to compare the perioperative and prognostic outcomes of RLR with those of LLR and OLR in patients with HCC.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in Embase, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science using the following keywords: "liver resection," "robotic," and "hepatocellular carcinoma." The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS), with outcomes expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary endpoints were perioperative outcomes, including resection margin status, intraoperative blood loss, transfusion requirement, operative time, conversion rate, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay, reported as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs.
resultsEighteen studies involving 4,098 patients were included. Twelve studies reported the long-term prognosis of patients, with six comparing RLR with LLR, four comparing RLR with OLR, and two comparing RLR with LLR and OLR. Sixteen studies reported perioperative outcomes. The meta-analysis illustrated that RLR was associated with improved RFS (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.94; p = 0.0092) and OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.92; p = 0.0101) compared with LLR. No significant differences in OS and RFS were observed between RLR and OLR. Compared with LLR, RLR was associated with a lower conversion rate to laparotomy (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.79; p = 0.0034) and a longer operative time (MD 30.69 min, 95% CI 9.56-51.82; p = 0.0044). RLR also resulted in significantly lower rates of overall complications (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.98; p = 0.0402), severe complications (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24-0.70; p = 0.0011, respectively), and a shorter hospital stay (MD - 3.70 days, 95% CI - 4.80 to - 2.61; p < 0.0001).
conclusionIn patients with HCC, RLR is associated with superior prognosis and perioperative outcomes compared with LLR and RLR exhibits better perioperative outcomes than OLR.
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.