Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42133269›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026

From laparoscopy to robotics in living donor hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative outcomes.

Mohamed Al Sayed, Mahmoud Albashier, Hashem Altabbaa, Ahmad Omar Saleh, Abdalla M Hadhoud, Mahmoud Ashraf Hussein, Abedalrahman Yazan Aljarrah, Menatalla M Abdelrazek, Mohamed Bakhiet

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

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. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Mohamed Al SayedDepartment of Upper Gastrointestinal and Liver Surgery, Unit 2, Alexandria Main University Hospital, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9361-7007
Mahmoud AlbashierThe Research Papyrus Lab, Alexandria, Egypt. mahmoudalbashier@students.du.edu.eg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-7125-170X
Hashem AltabbaaThe Research Papyrus Lab, Alexandria, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8031-838X
Ahmad Omar SalehFaculty of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5947-0511
Abdalla M HadhoudDepartment of Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1410-7680
Mahmoud Ashraf HusseinThe Research Papyrus Lab, Alexandria, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-6582-4292
Abedalrahman Yazan AljarrahThe Research Papyrus Lab, Alexandria, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-6254-2884
Menatalla M AbdelrazekThe Research Papyrus Lab, Alexandria, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-5567-7982
Mohamed BakhietSchool of Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2126-4174

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Minimally invasive approaches have become integral to adult living donor hepatectomy, where protection of donor safety is paramount. Both laparoscopic and robotic techniques are increasingly implemented in specialized transplant centers for various graft types, including right lobe, left lobe, and left lateral sectionectomy. In this context, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the current evidence comparing robotic and laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy in adult liver transplantation. The analysis primarily focused on right lobe procurement while acknowledging that several large registry-based studies included mixed graft types. The methodology and reporting of this study followed the PRISMA 2020 statement, and the protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database. Electronic databases were systematically searched through December 2025 to identify comparative studies evaluating robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy in adult living donors. Operative, donor, and recipient outcomes were synthesized using random-effects meta-analytic models. Methodological quality was appraised with the ROBINS-I tool, and the overall strength of evidence was graded using the GRADE framework. Seven comparative studies published between 2022 and 2025, comprising more than 15,000 adult living donors, met inclusion criteria. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were broadly similar across surgical approaches. Robotic donor hepatectomy was associated with a lower likelihood of perioperative transfusion (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09–0.76; p = 0.013) and a reduced incidence of overall donor morbidity (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25–0.89; p = 0.020) compared with laparoscopy. No significant differences were observed in major donor complications or mortality. Although operative duration was longer with the robotic technique, intraoperative blood loss was lower. Among recipients, robotic graft procurement was associated with reduced overall morbidity and fewer biliary complications, whereas vascular events and mortality were comparable between approaches. Robotic living donor hepatectomy appears to enhance donor safety, with lower transfusion rates and reduced overall morbidity, while maintaining comparable rates of major complications and mortality. These results suggest a potential advantage for the robotic approach in appropriately experienced centers. Nevertheless, confirmation through large, rigorously designed randomized trials is required to establish definitive comparative effectiveness and to clarify the optimal minimally invasive strategy.Registration: PROSPERO CRD420261299554.

Indexed as

HepatectomyLaparoscopyLiver TransplantationLiving DonorsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansTreatment OutcomeAdult living donor liver transplantationDonor safetyLaparoscopic donor hepatectomyMeta-analysisMinimally invasive liver surgeryRobotic living donor hepatectomy

Identifiers

PMID42133269
PMCPMC13176131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.