SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2026
Comparative effectiveness and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for benign liver diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobotic liver resection (RLR) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), but its comparative effectiveness and safety for benign liver diseases remain uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare perioperative outcomes between RLR and LLR.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, WanFang Data, VIP Database (CQVIP), and CNKI were searched from inception to November 2025. Studies comparing RLR with LLR for benign liver diseases were included. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Subgroup analyses were performed according to disease type.
resultsNine retrospective studies involving 790 patients (RLR, n = 268; LLR, n = 522) were included. Compared with LLR, RLR was associated with shorter setup-excluded operative time (WMD = -36.24 min, 95% CI = -52.88 to -19.60 min), lower intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -55.66 mL, 95% CI = -69.58 to -41.75 mL), a lower conversion rate to open surgery (RR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.69), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD = -0.68 days, 95% CI = -1.35 to -0.01 days). RLR was also associated with higher albumin levels on postoperative day (POD) 1 (WMD = 1.65 g/L, 95% CI = 0.41 to 2.88 g/L) and lower ALT levels on POD 1 (WMD = - 27.24 U/L, 95% CI = - 48.42 to - 6.05 U/L). Total operative time and postoperative complication rates were comparable between the two approaches. In subgroup analyses, RLR was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss in both hepatolithiasis and hepatic hemangioma, with a numerically larger reduction in the latter subgroup; additionally, RLR was associated with lower conversion rates and shorter postoperative hospital stay in hepatolithiasis.
conclusionsRLR was associated with advantages in several specific perioperative outcomes compared with LLR for benign liver diseases, without an increase in postoperative complications. However, all available evidence was retrospective, and the clinical significance of modest postoperative biochemical differences remains uncertain. Large prospective multicenter studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD420251062434.
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.