SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Clinical efficacy and safety of augmented reality-guided hepatic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLiver resection is technically challenging due to the liver's anatomical complexity. Augmented reality (AR), especially when combined with indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence, has been adopted to enhance resection precision, reduce intraoperative complications, and improve outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether AR-guided liver surgery is associated with reduced intraoperative bleeding and improved clinical outcomes compared to conventional techniques.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies comparing AR-guided liver resections were included. Outcomes analyzed included blood loss, transfusion rates, Clavien-Dindo classification, operative time, liver failure, surgical site infection (SSI), resection-related complications, hospital stay length, and tumor recurrence. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 and R Studio 4.5, applying a random-effects model when heterogeneity was high.
resultsOf 284 identified studies, 5 met inclusion criteria, totaling 410 patients (AR group n = 141), with 56% male and a mean age of 57 years. AR use was significantly associated with reduced blood loss (MD: -75.9 mL; 95% CI -103.4 to -48.3; p < 0.001), lower transfusion rates (RR: 0.47; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.85; p = 0.01), and fewer resection-related complications (RR: 0.64; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.90; p = 0.009). Subgroup analysis in patients with liver tumors confirmed these benefits, including a lower recurrence rate (RR: 0.52; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79; p = 0.002). No significant differences were found for Clavien-Dindo classification, operative time, liver failure, SSI, or hospital stay duration.
conclusionAR-guided liver surgery demonstrated significant clinical benefits, notably reducing intraoperative bleeding, transfusion needs, resection-related complications, and tumor recurrence. Despite limitations in study number and methodological variability, this meta-analysis supports AR as a safe and effective tool in liver surgery, warranting further research to standardize its application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41430466What 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.