SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Updated overview of robotic hepatic parenchymal transection techniques: technical developments, international perspectives, and future directions.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 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
Robotic liver surgery is rapidly evolving, and parenchymal transection remains one of its most technically challenging steps. A recent narrative review identified and classified 13 robotic liver transection techniques, distinguishing between hybrid and fully robotic approaches, as well as between one- and two-surgeon methods. One year later, a systematic literature review was conducted to provide an updated overview of recent technical innovations, to identify international guidelines or consensus statements related to robotic liver surgery, and to evaluate the availability of comparative studies assessing the performance and outcomes of different robotic liver parenchymal transection techniques or devices. Within this relatively short time frame, 5 novel transection techniques not included in the original classification were described. In addition, 6 publications reporting surveys, consensus statements, or international protocols, as well as 4 comparative studies, were identified. However, despite the growing number of publications on this topic, the absence of randomized controlled trials and the limited availability of high-quality comparative studies have hindered the development of definitive guidelines and the identification of a gold-standard transection method. Although robotic liver surgery is currently characterized by widespread enthusiasm and rapid adoption, the lack of standardization continues to limit reproducibility and complicates meaningful comparison of surgical outcomes across centers. An adaptive and flexible approach, in which surgical teams achieve proficiency in a “minimal core toolbox” of techniques and instruments and tailor their application according to procedural complexity and patient-specific factors, may represent a pragmatic strategy to enhance safety, reproducibility, and training in robotic liver surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41807719What 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.