Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Anatomic Liver Resection: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes—A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Anatomic Liver Resection: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes—A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Anatomic Liver Resection: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes—A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Anatomic Liver Resection: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes—A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
2026
Overview
Aim Minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (AR) is technically demanding, and the efficacy of robotic surgery in AR remains unestablished. This systematic review aims through a meta‐analysis to compare surgical outcomes between robotic (RAR) and conventional laparoscopic (LAR) AR. Methods A systematic literature search of relevant studies published between 2001 and 2024 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library was carried out, and 15 studies were selected. Meta‐analysis was performed to compare perioperative outcomes between RAR and LAR. Results A total of 4171 patients comprising 2042 RAR and 2129 LAR patients who underwent major hepatectomy or liver parenchyma‐sparing AR (PSAR) were included. All included studies were retrospective comparative studies, including eight using propensity score‐matched analysis. Meta‐analysis demonstrated that as primary outcomes, the 30‐day and 90‐day mortalities and postoperative overall morbidity were comparable between RAR and LAR, while RAR had significantly less morbidity≥Clavien‐Dindo grade II and a lower rate of open conversion. As secondary outcomes, compared to LAR, RAR showed significantly less blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stay, while RAR had a higher rate of postoperative 30‐day readmission. Operative time, blood transfusion, Pringle maneuver, R0 resection, and reoperation were comparable. Subgroup meta‐analyses showed a lower rate of blood transfusion in robotic PSAR and a lower rate of open conversion in RAR in the right cranial regions. Conclusion This large‐scale meta‐analysis of minimally invasive AR suggests that RAR can confer comparable or partly better perioperative outcomes as compared to LAR, indicating potential advantages of the robotic approach to AR. Minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (AR) including major hepatectomy and liver parenchyma‐sparing AR is technically complex and demanding. This systematic review with meta‐analysis including 15 studies comparing 2042 robotic AR and 2129 laparoscopic AR patients demonstrated largely comparable perioperative outcomes and partly better outcomes including significantly less major postoperative morbidity, a lower rate of open conversion, less blood loss, and shorter postoperative hospital stay in robotic AR. These results suggest potential perioperative advantages conferred by robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery for this type of complex liver resection.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc,Wiley
