ArticleInternational surgery2015
Verification of inferior right hepatic vein-conserving segments 7 to 8 resection of the liver.
Article in International surgery, 2015. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic resection of segments 7 and dorsal 8: glissonean pedicle-first and IRHV-first approaches.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Preserving inferior right hepatic vein enabled bisegmentectomy 7 and 8 without venous congestion: a case report.Surgical case reports · 2021Article
- Inferior Right Hepatic Vein-Preserving Hepatectomy for Large Liver Tumors: Anterior Approach Using the Two-Stage Modified Hanging Maneuver (with Video).Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the safety of inferior right hepatic vein (IRHV)-conserving surgery by comparing the surgical data and postoperative complications between IRHV-conserving segments 7 to 8 (S7 to S8) resection and conventional right hemihepatectomy (RH). Five patients who underwent IRHV-conserving S7 to S8 segmentectomy between 2007 and 2011 (IRHV group) and 25 liver cancer patients who underwent RH without biliary tract reconstruction during the same period (RH group) were investigated. The surgical data, postoperative complications, and duration of hospital stay were compared. The IRHV and RH groups included 2 (40%) and 13 (52%) hepatocellular carcinoma patients, respectively. There were no significant differences in liver function before surgery between the groups. The presence of the IRHV did not adversely affect the processing of the short hepatic vein or frontal dissection of the inferior vena cava. The operative time was shorter (median, 366 minutes versus 501 minutes; P = 0.0001), the postoperative bilirubin level was lower (12 mg/dL versus 1.8 mg/dL; P = 0.037), and the duration of hospital stay was shorter (10 days versus 14 days; P = 0.002) in the IRHV group. No significant differences were noted in the intraoperative blood loss, postoperative transaminase levels, or the incidence of severe complications (Clavien grade IIIb or higher) between the groups. IRHV-conserving resection of the liver is a safe surgical procedure that is useful in preventing postoperative elevation of bilirubin level and in shortening the duration of hospital stay.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.