ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026
Feasibility of robotic liver resection compared with laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the Editor on: "Feasibility of robotic liver resection compared with laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis".International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- A commentary on "Feasibility of robotic liver resection compared with laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis".International journal of surgery (London, England) · 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
backgroundRobotic liver resection (RLR) has gained popularity in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, its efficacy compared to laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) remains unclear.
methodsComprehensive literature search of electronic databases from January 2010 to December 2024 identified studies comparing RLR, LLR, or OLR. Operative, postoperative, and survival data were extracted, and pooled odd ratios or hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a frequentist network meta-analysis including RLR, LLR, and OLR.
resultsA total of 69 studies, comprising 1 randomized controlled, 3 prospective, and 65 retrospective-matched studies, involving 13,257 patients were analyzed. This network meta-analysis showed that RLR had significantly lower blood loss than both OLR and LLR, with comparable operative time, RBC transfusion rates, Pringle maneuver use, Pringle time, and R1 resection rates. RLR showed similar rates of overall and major complications and hospital stay duration as LLR, with significant benefits over OLR. No significant differences in 90-day mortality were found among the three groups. For long-term outcomes, RLR showed no significant advantage over LLR or OLR in overall and recurrence-free survival, though it generally ranked higher with a greater P -score.
conclusionsThis network meta-analysis suggests that RLR is a feasible surgical treatment option for HCC, offering perioperative and long-term outcomes comparable to LLR, with reduced postoperative morbidity and shorter hospital stays compared to OLR. However, further studies are needed to confirm RLR's efficacy due to its limited sample size.
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.