ReviewSurgery in practice and science2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Review in Surgery in practice and science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recovery-centered outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of robotic approach on total operating room time and surgical workflow in minimally invasive liver resection (TAKUMI-8).Surgical endoscopy · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic hepatectomy (RH) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH), but their comparative advantages remain unclear. This umbrella review synthesized evidence from published systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing RH and LH for liver resection; PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 2024 to identify eligible studies, methodological quality was appraised using AMSTAR, and pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for perioperative outcomes (complications, conversion to open surgery, operative time, blood loss, transfusion, R0 resection, length of stay, and costs) were extracted from each included meta-analysis. Twelve meta-analyses encompassing 152 primary studies and more than 15,000 patients were included, and the results showed that compared with LH, RH was associated with a lower rate of conversion to open surgery (OR = 0.70, 95 % CI 0.56-0.88) and a longer operative time (WMD = 29.51 min, 95 % CI 16.98-42.04), whereas other perioperative outcomes were generally comparable. The aggregated evidence suggests that, given comparable overall safety, RH may offer advantage over LH in reducing the conversion rate but has a longer operative time, while no significant differences were observed between the two techniques in overall complications, blood loss, transfusion rate, R0 resection rate, length of hospital stay, or costs. High quality prospective and randomized controlled studies are still required to further validate these findings.
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.