ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Robotic versus open hepatectomy for IWATE expert-level liver resection: a risk-adjusted comparative 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence directly comparing robotic and open hepatectomy for IWATE expert-level liver resection remains limited. This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between the two approaches in a high-volume hepatobiliary center.
methodsWe reviewed 1706 consecutive patients who underwent hepatectomy for intrahepatic lesions between January 2024 and December 2025. Among them, 232 patients met the criteria for IWATE expert-level resection, including 70 robotic and 162 open cases. The primary outcome was major complications, defined as Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III. One-to-one propensity score matching was used as the primary risk-adjustment method. Overlap weighting was performed as a sensitivity analysis, with an additional malignancy-restricted analysis. Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted for major complications and textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS).
resultsPropensity score matching yielded 68 well-balanced pairs. In the matched cohort, robotic hepatectomy had longer operative time than open hepatectomy (median, 240.0 vs 205.5 min; P = 0.002), but lower estimated blood loss (100.0 vs 200.0 mL; P = 0.038) and shorter postoperative length of stay (6.0 vs 9.0 days; P < 0.001). Major complications were comparable between the robotic and open groups (13.2% vs 19.1%; P = 0.480). TOLS and severe liver-specific complications were also similar between groups. No significant between-group difference was observed in 90-day mortality. Findings from the overlap-weighted and malignancy-restricted analyses were directionally consistent with the primary analysis. In exploratory subgroup analyses, no significant interaction was observed across most prespecified subgroups, whereas a significant interaction with cirrhosis was detected for both major complications and TOLS.
conclusionsRobotic hepatectomy was associated with reduced blood loss and shorter postoperative stay without increased major morbidity or mortality in selected patients undergoing IWATE expert-level liver resection at an experienced center. These findings support the selective application of robotic hepatectomy in technically demanding liver resections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42629486What 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.