ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Evaluating pneumoperitoneum pressure in robotic liver surgery: a propensity-score matched analysis in a high-volume center in Scandinavia.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive liver surgery usually involves the use of standard pneumoperitoneal pressure (12-15 mmHg) and low central venous pressure (CVP) management to reduce intraoperative bleeding while hereby possibly increasing the risk for gas embolism. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low pneumoperitoneum pressure (Low-PP: 10 mmHg) compared to standard pneumoperitoneum pressure (Standard-PP: 12 mmHg) in patients undergoing robotic liver surgery (RLS) without active CVP management.
methodsA single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted from June 2019 to February 2024. Propensity-score matching analysis (1:1) was performed based on age, sex, BMI, ASA classification, diagnosis, and extent of resection (minor or major) for Low-PP group to Standard-PP group. The primary outcome were estimated blood loss (EBL), operating time (OT), length of stay (LOS), and complications (Clavien-Dindo classification).
resultsBefore the propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis, the Low-PP group comprised 63 patients and the Standard-PP group comprised 130 patients. Following PSM analysis, each group comprised 62 patients. The pringle maneuver was performed significantly more frequently in the Low-PP group (87.1% vs 50.0%, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences with regards EBL, OT, LOS, or overall/major complications between the two groups. Intraoperative anesthetic parameters were comparable, and no signs of gas embolism were observed in either group. In a subgroup analyis for minor and major resections, no statistically significant differences were observed in perioperative outcomes between the groups.
conclusionOur study did not find any statistically significant difference in perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing RLS at a pneumoperitoneal pressure of 10 mmHg versus 12 mmHg. We therefore conclude that performing RLS using a pneumoperitoneal pressure of 10 mmHg PP is feasible and safe. Randomized controlled trials are needed to further investigate the potential and benefit of this strategy.
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.