ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Safety of robotic liver resection under antiplatelet therapy: a propensity score-matching study.
Article 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntiplatelet (AP) therapy is increasingly prescribed for secondary and primary cardiovascular prevention. Liver resection (LR) is inherently associated with moderate-to-high risk of bleeding, while AP therapy discontinuation may increase the incidence of thrombotic events. Evidence regarding the safety of continuing AP therapy during robotic LR is limited. The aim of this study was to assess hemorrhagic and ischemic events in patients undergoing elective robotic LR and their association with AP continuation.
methodsPatients who underwent robotic LR at our institution between 2013 and 2025 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients receiving AP therapy were compared with controls, both before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). Primary endpoints included in-hospital mortality, estimated blood loss (EBL) > 500 mL, post-hepatectomy hemorrhage (PHH), postoperative bleeding events, and ischemic events. Associations between AP continuation and intra- and postoperative outcomes were assessed through univariate analysis.
resultsBefore matching, 62 patients were included in the AP group and 594 in the control group. Age, diabetes, cardiovascular comorbidities, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and MELD score were significantly higher in the AP cohort. After PSM, 46 patients were included in each group. No significant differences were observed between AP and control groups in EBL > 500 mL (6.1% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.784; OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.37-3.11, p = 0.903), PHH (2.2% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.644; OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.33-6.76, p = 0.622), postoperative bleedings (3.4% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.272; OR 1.98, 95% CI 0.65-5.99, p = 0.259), in-hospital mortality (0.8% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.135; OR 3.93, 95% CI 0.75-20.68, p = 0.149), or ischemic events (1.5% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.279; OR 2.17, 95% CI 0.46-10.26, p = 0.368).
conclusionsContinuation of antiplatelet therapy was not associated with intra- and postoperative bleedings or ischemic events in our cohort. These findings suggest that robotic LR is safe in patients maintained on AP agent and support its perioperative continuation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42536087What 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.