ArticleUpdates in surgery2015
From the left to the right: 13-year experience in laparoscopic living donor liver transplantation.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of pure laparoscopic surgery on bile duct division of living donor left lateral section procurement.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2023Article
- Safe Strategy to Initiate Total Laparoscopic Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Stepwise Approach From a Laparoscopy-Assisted Method.World journal of surgery · 2020Article
- Enhanced Recovery in Liver Transplantation: A Feasibility Study.World journal of surgery · 2019Article
- Evolution of laparoscopic liver resection at Singapore General Hospital: a nine-year experience of 195 consecutive resections.Singapore medical journal · 2017Article
- Pure laparoscopic versus open donor hepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation - A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of minimal access surgeryReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Living Donors are the best theoretical candidates to benefit from the advantages of laparoscopy, but development was slow because of concerns about graft integrity and donor safety. Herein our 13-year experience in laparoscopic Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT) is presented. Laparoscopic Left Lateral Section (LLLS) was performed in children receiver, while Laparoscopic Left Hepatectomy (LLH)-including or not the middle hepatic vein-and Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy (LRH) in adults. Two senior surgeons were always involved for each procedure. All donors were first-degree relatives. From 2001 to 2014, 71 procedures were performed: 63 LLLS (88.7%, 6 LLH (8.4%), and 2 LRH (2.8%). Surgical procedures required a mean of 271.1 ± 65.9, 318 ± 40.2, and 480 ± 0 min for LLLS, LLH, and LRH, respectively with a learning curve toward LLLH over the years (r = 0.09). Seven procedures (9.8%) required conversion. The mean hospital stay was 5.5 ± 3.4, 5.3 ± 0.6, and 8 ± 0 days for LLLS, LLH, and LRH, respectively. Complications occurred in 11 patients (17.3%) undergoing LLLS: 8 (12.7%) grade I and 3 (4.7%) grade II, according to the Modified Clavien-Dindo classification. Laparoscopic liver resection for LDLT requires an equivalent and parallel expertise in open LDLT and LLR. If LLLS for LDLT is now in an exploration phase in highly specialized centers, LLH and LRH for LDLT in adults lack evidence and cannot be recommended for wide introduction. For laparoscopic LDLT beginners, LLLS offers optimal conditions.
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.