Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42223763›Full record

ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2026

Full robotic liver transplantation in recipients: a narrative review of three competing surgical strategies.

Yuzhen Basang, Hanhua Dong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yuzhen BasangTongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College of Huazhong, University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Hanhua DongTongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College of Huazhong, University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 4550388@qq.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Liver TransplantationRobotic Surgical ProceduresConstrictionHumansLiving DonorsPatient Selectionhepatobiliary surgerylaparoscopic liver transplantationliver transplantationliving donor liver transplantationminimally invasive surgical proceduresrobotic liver resectionrobotic surgical procedurestransplant recipient outcomes

Identifiers

PMID42223763
PMCPMC13226439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.