ReviewAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2026
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Anatomic Liver Resection: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Annals of gastroenterological 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (AR) is technically demanding, and the efficacy of robotic surgery in AR remains unestablished. This systematic review aims through a meta-analysis to compare surgical outcomes between robotic (RAR) and conventional laparoscopic (LAR) AR. Methods: A systematic literature search of relevant studies published between 2001 and 2024 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library was carried out, and 15 studies were selected. Meta-analysis was performed to compare perioperative outcomes between RAR and LAR. Results: A total of 4171 patients comprising 2042 RAR and 2129 LAR patients who underwent major hepatectomy or liver parenchyma-sparing AR (PSAR) were included. All included studies were retrospective comparative studies, including eight using propensity score-matched analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated that as primary outcomes, the 30-day and 90-day mortalities and postoperative overall morbidity were comparable between RAR and LAR, while RAR had significantly less morbidity≥Clavien-Dindo grade II and a lower rate of open conversion. As secondary outcomes, compared to LAR, RAR showed significantly less blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stay, while RAR had a higher rate of postoperative 30-day readmission. Operative time, blood transfusion, Pringle maneuver, R0 resection, and reoperation were comparable. Subgroup meta-analyses showed a lower rate of blood transfusion in robotic PSAR and a lower rate of open conversion in RAR in the right cranial regions. Conclusion: This large-scale meta-analysis of minimally invasive AR suggests that RAR can confer comparable or partly better perioperative outcomes as compared to LAR, indicating potential advantages of the robotic approach to AR.
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.