ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2026
Full robotic liver transplantation in recipients: a narrative review of three competing surgical strategies.
Review in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Minimally invasive liver transplantation: technical evolution, evidence maturity, and translational boundaries.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic liver transplantation (RLT) has emerged as the latest frontier in minimally invasive transplant surgery. Since the first fully robotic living donor liver transplant in 2023, multiple centers worldwide have reported their initial experiences, leading to the development of three distinct technical strategies. This review systematically compares these three competing approaches: the Asian strategy (partial caval clamping, no veno-venous bypass, Pfannenstiel incision) reported by Broering et al., the American strategy (total caval clamping with veno-venous bypass, upper midline incision) reported by Khan et al., and the European strategy (total caval clamping without bypass, upper midline incision, routine machine perfusion) reported by Pinto-Marques, Di Benedetto, and colleagues. Key technical differences, patient selection criteria, and perioperative outcomes are analyzed. Notably, the most recent European case employed partial caval clamping, suggesting a trend toward convergence. While all three strategies have demonstrated feasibility with excellent short-term outcomes, no standardized approach currently exists. This review provides a framework for understanding current RLT techniques and offers guidance for centers considering adoption of robotic liver transplantation.
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.