ArticleDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2010
[Current state of laparoscopic hepatic surgery: results of a survey of DGAV-members].
Article in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [The surgical technique of laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy. Technical aspects and results].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2014Article
- Laparoscopic navigated liver resection: technical aspects and clinical practice in benign liver tumors.Case reports in surgery · 2012Article
- Current state of surgical treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo date laparoscopic hepatic surgery is only common in a few centres for a specific selected patient group. The intention of this survey was to estimate the current state of affairs for laparoscopic hepatic surgery in Germany at 2008. MATERIALS AND
methodsA questionnaire was prepared and sent out by e-mail in May 2009 to the members of the DGAV (German Society of General and Visceral Surgery). The feedback was evaluated anonymously.
resultsA total of 181 answers were received by 31st July 2009 (return rate of 15.9%). The return rate of basic and standard care hospitals was 9.2%, specialized hospitals 23.6%, hospitals with maximum care 50% and university hospitals had a return rate of 71.9%. The question whether laparoscopic hepatic surgery had been performed in 2008 was answered with YES by 125 (69.1%) and NO by 54 (29.8%) members. The number of laparoscopic hepatic surgery interventions (laparoscopic ultrasound, laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation and resection) in 2008 was given as more than 50 by 4 (2.2%) hospitals, between 20 and 50 by 11 (6.1%) hospitals, between 10 and 20 by 23 (12.7%) hospitals, between 5 and 10 by 45 (24.9%) hospitals and between 0 and 5 by 54 (29.8%) hospitals. In 2008 the frequency of laparoscopic ultrasound during intraoperative staging to confirm the diagnosis ranged from 2 to 250, whereby 96.4% of the hospitals had less than 50 and only 2 hospitals (2.7%) had 211 and 250 examinations, respectively. 50 hospitals carried out laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (RFA). 69 (38.1%) of the interviewed hospitals reported hepatic laparoscopic resections (n=551).
conclusionLaparoscopic liver surgery has been done in Germany in patients with benign or malignant liver lesions. Pure laparoscopy is the most common access. Atypical resections are the primarily indication followed by left lateral resections. All further types of resection have been done in a very small number. Laparoscopic liver surgery has been performed in all types of hospitals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20706700What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.