ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Validation and applicability of the Tampa Difficulty Score for assessing procedural complexity in robotic liver surgery.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the increasing adoption of robotic systems in hepatic surgery, standardized assessment of procedural difficulty has become crucial, particularly for case selection in training and education. The Tampa Difficulty Score (TDS) was developed to classify robotic liver resections into four levels of complexity. This study aimed to externally validate the TDS.
methodsSeventy-nine consecutive patients undergoing robotic liver resection between 2018 and 2024 were included in this retrospective single-center study. Group comparisons between TDS categories were performed using descriptive and inferential statistics including analysis of variance via the Kruskal-Wallis test, Chi-square test, Mann-Whitney-U test, or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. Effect sizes were calculated accordingly. Post hoc analyses for intergrupal differences were conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Spearman's rank correlation assessed linear associations between TDS and perioperative variables.
resultsSignificant intergroup differences between TDS categories were found for major resections (p < 0.001), operative time (p < 0.001), blood loss (p < 0.001), intensive care stay (p = 0.002), hospital stay (p = 0.005), specimen weight (p < 0.001) and tumor size (p = 0.012). Post hoc analyses with Bonferroni-Holm correction confirmed significant differences mainly between TDS groups 2 and 3 for key parameters, but also showed homogenous distribution throughout the other TDS groups. Strong positive correlations were observed between TDS and major resections (|ρ| = 0.651), operative time (|ρ| = 0.715), blood loss (|ρ| = 0.507), and specimen weight (|ρ| = 0.578; all p < 0.001).
conclusionThe Tampa Difficulty Score was validated for RLR, showing consistent results in both intergroup comparisons and correlation analyses. TDS proved to be a reliable instrument for assessing procedural difficulty, demonstrating its value for risk assessment, training standardization, as well as future evaluations despite the 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.