ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Potential contribution of extended reality to safety in minimally invasive hepatectomy: a comparative study of laparoscopic and robotic approaches.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive liver surgery requires a precise understanding of complex liver anatomy. Extended reality (XR) technologies, including virtual reality and mixed reality, offer promising solutions for enhancing preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of XR technology in minimally invasive hepatectomy and compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic approaches. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 102 patients who underwent minimally invasive hepatectomy. Patients were categorized into XR-assisted (n = 47) and without XR (n = 55) groups. The XR group had significantly higher IWATE difficulty scores (median 6 vs. 4, P < 0.001) and a greater proportion of anatomical resections (57.4% vs. 27.3%, P = 0.003). Nevertheless, the estimated blood loss (median 150 mL vs. 100 mL, P = 0.054) and incidence of severe complications (6.4% vs. 0%, P = 0.094) did not differ significantly between the XR and non-XR groups. Subgroup analyses of the robotic and laparoscopic procedures showed similar trends in safety outcomes. The potential of XR technology to enhance anatomical understanding suggests its valuable role in improving surgical quality and safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42138762What 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.