To the Editor With great interest, I read the article by Di Benedetto et al, 1 which was recently published in JAMA Surgery. Di Benedetto et al 1 analyzed the short-and longterm outcomes of robotic liver resection (RLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma from Western high-volume centers to assess the safety, reproducibility, and oncological efficacy of this technique. They concluded that, compared with open liver resection (OLR), RLR performed in tertiary centers represents a safe treatment strategy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and those with compromised liver function while achieving oncologic efficacy. However, I would like to discuss a few concerns about this article and demonstrate that this information is not clinically usable and can be misleading.First, this is a multicenter and retrospective study, and propensity score matching was used to keep the 2 groups comparable; however, this study was nonrandomized and nonblinded. This may result in some patients with tumors close to important blood vessels of the liver, specifically those located near the hepatic portal vein and inferior vena cava, being more inclined to choose OLR as it requires major vascular resection and reconstruction. Furthermore, differences in microvascular invasion were observed between the 2 groups, which is an important factor influencing patient recurrence and leading patients in the OLR group to be more prone to recurrence even after propensity score matching. More than 90% of patients in the study cohort had no portal hypertension, and only 5% of patients had Child-Pugh class B; these so-called ideal candidates were difficult to find in a single center.Second, I observed that only 1 patient had a grade B bile leak in the total enrolled cases. Robotic visual cues are improved via the binocular-enhanced 3-dimensional vision despite missing tactile feedback, making the robotic approach