ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
Safety and efficacy of robotic repeat hepatectomy compared to laparoscopic and open repeat hepatectomy: a retrospective comparative study.
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Repeat hepatectomies are challenging due to adhesions and altered anatomy. Robotic surgery, with enhanced dexterity and visualization, may expand the role of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) in this setting. The aim of this study was to explore the safety and efficacy of robotic repeat hepatectomy. We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing repeat robotic (R-RLR), laparoscopic (L-RLR), and open liver resections (O-RLR) performed between January 2019 and December 2024. The primary outcome was postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included conversion to laparotomy, use of Pringle maneuver, blood loss, hospital stay and postoperative mortality. For oncologic efficacy, rates of negative surgical margins (R0) or equivalent (R1 vascular), recurrences and survival were assessed. Forty-two patients underwent repeat hepatectomy (O-RLR = 15, L-RLR = 13, R-RLR = 14). Over time, O-RLR and L-RLR declined in favor of R-RLR. Main indications were colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma. Groups had similar age and comorbidities; however, cirrhosis and portal hypertension were more frequent in R-RLR. Mean Iwate scores were 6 (O-RLR), 4 (L-RLR), and 5 (R-RLR) (p = 0.240). Postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in L-RLR (7.6%) and R-RLR (7.7%) compared to O-RLR (40%) (p = 0.030). Mean Comprehensive Complication Index was 11.7 (O-RLR), 0.7 (L-RLR), and 0.6 (R-RLR) (p = 0.025). Two L-RLR cases required conversion. Pringle maneuver, blood loss, and hospital stay decreased progressively from O-RLR to L-RLR to R-RLR. There was no postoperative mortality.R0 resection was achieved in 73% (O-RLR), 100% (L-RLR), and 78.5% (R-RLR); R1 vascular rates were 13.3%, 0%, and 21.5%, respectively (p = 0.14). The three groups had similar overall and hepatic recurrence rates; survival (recurrence-free and overall) was also similar. Repeat robotic hepatectomy is safe and provides good oncologic outcomes. The robotic approach may allow MILS in more complex cases, including patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42853542What 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.