ReviewUpdates in surgery2026
Minimally invasive liver transplantation: technical evolution, evidence maturity, and translational boundaries.
Review in Updates in surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Liver transplantation is an established treatment for end-stage liver disease and selected hepatic malignancies, but conventional open transplantation remains associated with substantial operative trauma and incision-related morbidity. With the expansion of laparoscopic, robotic, and digital platforms, minimally invasive concepts have progressively entered donor hepatectomy, recipient hepatectomy, and graft implantation. This narrative review searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science Core Collection from January 2020 to 1 June 2026 and prioritized guidelines, consensus statements, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, multicenter studies, prospective registries, and representative case series. The available evidence indicates asymmetric maturity across the minimally invasive liver transplantation spectrum. These maturity judgments represent an interpretive synthesis of predominantly nonrandomized and center-specific evidence. Laparoscopic donor hepatectomy has the most mature evidence, while robotic-assisted donor hepatectomy has a growing evidence base; both may reduce donor trauma and facilitate recovery in selected donors at experienced centers. In contrast, recipient-side minimally invasive procedures remain at the feasibility stage, whereas evidence for fully robotic liver transplantation remains preliminary because of limited exposure, bleeding-control demands, vascular and biliary reconstruction, ischemia-time constraints, anesthetic complexity, cost, and learning-curve requirements. Digital adjuncts, including fluorescence imaging, three-dimensional reconstruction, simulation, and artificial intelligence, may support planning, navigation, reconstruction, and training, but their value should be judged by clinical outcome validation rather than feasibility alone. Clinical translation should therefore remain stepwise: donor-side integration may be considered in trained teams, whereas recipient-side and fully robotic approaches should remain within prospective registries, ethical oversight, standardized reporting, and safe conversion pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42726461What 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.