ArticleWorld journal of transplantation2026
Robotic-assisted donor and recipient hepatectomy in liver transplantation: An umbrella review of clinical outcomes, surgical performance, and cost-effectiveness.
Article in World journal of transplantation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Minimally invasive liver transplantation: technical evolution, evidence maturity, and translational boundaries.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic assistance is increasingly used for donor and recipient hepatectomy in liver transplantation, yet existing evidence is fragmented and variably indirect.
aimTo evaluate clinical outcomes, surgical performance, and economic effects of robotic-assisted donor and recipient hepatectomy in the transplant pathway.
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 and a priori registration, systematic reviews were included with or without meta-analysis. Four databases were searched through July 2025. Methodological quality was appraised with a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR 2), and certainty was graded with grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE). Evidence overlap was calculated
resultsFive reviews met the inclusion criteria, four with meta-analyses and one consensus review used only for context. Donor (direct) findings were more favorable for robotics in terms of estimated blood loss (≈ -117 mL) and length of stay (≈ -0.6 days), although with longer operative time (≈ +105 minutes). Absolute risks for donor complications were not estimable from ratio-only data. Recipient (indirect) meta-analysis indicated robotics to be favorable in terms of conversion (RR ≈ 0.41) and severe morbidity (RR ≈ 0.81), with a trend toward lower overall morbidity (RR ≈ 0.92) and no difference in 30-day mortality. Differences in length of stay and operative time were small and heterogeneous. Economic evidence (indirect, network meta-analysis) suggested higher procedural costs for robotic
conclusionRobotic donor hepatectomy confers perioperative advantages at the cost of longer operative time. Recipient and economic findings are indirect and considered hypothesis-generating. Transplant-specific, prospective comparisons using a minimum standardized dataset and uniform outcome definitions are needed to resolve remaining uncertainties and to clarify the cost-utility correlation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.