ArticleSurgery today2026
Predictors of textbook outcome deviation in robotic liver resection: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in Surgery today, 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
purposeTextbook outcomes (TO) are composite indicators of surgical quality, but their role in robotic liver resection (RLR) remains unclear. This study aimed to define the TO in RLR and identify the preoperative predictors of TO deviation.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 94 patients who underwent RLR between September 2022 and January 2025. TO was defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥ grade 2 (Oslo criteria), blood loss ≤ 370 mL, conversion, postoperative complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade II, prolonged hospital stay (> 14 days), and 30-day readmission. Multivariable analyses were performed using preoperative variables.
resultsTO was achieved in 79.8% (75/94) of the patients. The major causes of deviation included excessive blood loss, abscesses, pneumonia, and conversion. Advanced/expert IWATE criteria and mALBI grade ≥ IIa were independent predictors in one model (OR 6.1 and 4.8), whereas advanced/expert IWATE criteria and ALPlat ≤ 593 were predictors in another (OR 5.5 and 7.1). The composite score showed stepwise deviation rates of 4%, 9%, 36%, and 83%.
conclusionsTO in RLR is influenced by the liver function and the complexity of the procedure. Preoperative indices, such as the IWATE criteria, mALBI, and ALPlat, enable risk stratification and may support safer surgical planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42560535What 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.