ArticleBMC surgery2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in hepatobiliary procedures: a scoping review.
Article in BMC 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobotic platforms have expanded the technical capabilities of minimally invasive hepatobiliary surgery. However, their clinical value compared with laparoscopy remains heterogeneous and appears to vary according to procedural complexity, anatomical constraints, and institutional experience.
methodsA procedure-stratified scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews and the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for comparative studies published between 2019 and 2025 evaluating robotic versus laparoscopic hepatobiliary surgery. Evidence was synthesized using a procedure-specific analytical framework to account for heterogeneity in technical complexity and outcome reporting.
resultsSeventy studies met inclusion criteria, the majority of which were retrospective. In technically demanding procedures, particularly major hepatectomy and resections of posterosuperior liver segments, robotic surgery was more frequently associated with lower intraoperative blood loss and reduced conversion to open surgery. Operative time was generally longer for robotic procedures across most indications. Overall perioperative morbidity, mortality, and early oncological outcomes were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic approaches. Postoperative recovery outcomes were inconsistently reported and heterogeneous, while procedural costs were consistently higher for robotic surgery.
conclusionsRobotic hepatobiliary surgery may offer context-dependent advantages in anatomically complex procedures, particularly in settings with appropriate surgical expertise. However, given the predominance of retrospective and heterogeneous evidence, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Overall, robotic and laparoscopic approaches demonstrate comparable safety and effectiveness across most indications. These findings support a procedure-based and context-sensitive integration of robotic technology rather than universal adoption.
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.