ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Novel single-port robotic hepatectomy: initial clinical experience and outcomes.
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.
- Duplicate gallbladder masquerading as a choledochal cyst: a case of single-port robotic surgery.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Reduced-port robotic partial hepatectomy using a simultaneous colostomy-closure site via a glove-port: a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Single port robotic hepatectomy: an initial European experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Robotic left lateral sectionectomy using the Hugo™ Robotic-Assisted Surgery system: a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Robotic Single-Port Right Hepatectomy: Unveiling New Possibilities.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and early outcomes of single-port (SP) robotic liver resection, including major and minor hepatectomies, using the da Vinci SP system in a low-to-intermediate-volume hepatobiliary center.
methodsTwenty patients underwent robotic SP surgery between April 2024 and May 2025. Among them, 14 underwent liver resections using the SP platform, including five major (right or left hepatectomy) and nine minor (wedge resection, monosegmentectomy, caudate lobectomy, or left lateral sectionectomy) procedures. Perioperative and short-term outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. Surgical techniques, including port placement and inflow control, were standardized. In selected cases, indocyanine green fluorescence imaging was performed for enhanced anatomical precision. No conversion to multiport or open surgery was required.
resultsThe median operative time was 201.1 min; the median hospital stay was 7.2 days. No major postoperative complications or readmissions were observed. One patient required a blood transfusion. All malignant cases achieved R0 resection; lymph node dissection was performed when indicated, and an average of 9.3 nodes was retrieved. Instrument articulation and visualization were optimized using the cobra mode, while floating port strategies were adopted based on the target location.
conclusionSP robotic liver resection is technically feasible and safe for major and minor hepatectomies. The platform overcomes many ergonomic and visualization challenges of SP laparoscopy while maintaining oncological integrity. Despite limitations, including the lack of integrated energy devices and reduced working space, the SP system offers cosmetic, precision, and ergonomic advantages. Our findings support the early adoption of SP robotic liver surgery, even in moderate-volume institutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41044283What 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.