SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Economic impact of robotic liver resection: systematic review of costs, resource utilization, and hospital stay.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 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
Abstract
backgroundThe robotic approach is being increasingly utilized for liver resections. Patient benefits from robotic liver resection (RLR) have been observed; however, their cost-benefit is yet to be confirmed. This systematic review aimed to determine the costs of RLR compared to laparoscopic (LLR) or open liver resections (OLR).
methodA systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed in October 2025. Non-randomized studies of adult patients undergoing RLR were included. The narrative data synthesis focused on total, intraoperative and indirect costs, and length of stay (LOS). Where study heterogeneity was deemed acceptable (I
results32 studies were included, involving a total of 16,592 patients. In RLR vs. OLR comparisons, most studies (n = 13/18, 72.2%) reported equivalent or lower total costs for RLR. In RLR vs. LLR comparisons, most studies (n = 10/18, 55.6%) reported higher total costs for RLR, confirmed by meta-analysis (+ 5,250 PPP-adjusted USD, 95% CI + 3,360 to + 7,150). A minority of studies (n = 8/32, 25%) addressed indirect costs or costs adjusted for case volume or complexity. When assessed, cost differences between RLR and LLR decreased in high-volume centers. No study performed a formal cost-effectiveness analysis.
conclusionAvailable evidence suggests laparoscopy remains the least costly approach. The cost of RLR may decrease in high-volume centers, complex resections, and with increasing diversity of robotic platforms. Standardization of cost reporting and quality of health economic analyses must be improved to provide definitive cost-effectiveness evaluations.
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.