ArticleUpdates in surgery2015
Oncological safety of ultrasound-guided laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal metastases: a case-control study.
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 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes for laparoscopic and open liver resections for liver metastases from colorectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2017Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus open liver resection in patients aged at least 80 years: retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.BJS open · 2025Article
- Review
- Review
- Laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases - short- and long-term outcomes: A systematic review.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Article
- Evolution of Surgical Treatment of Colorectal Liver Metastases in the Real World: Single Center Experience in 1212 Cases.Cancers · 2021Article
- Case Report: Robotically Assisted Excision of Cystic Tumor Located in a Difficult to Access Area in the Liver.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
- Ultrasound liver map technique for laparoscopic liver resections: perioperative outcomes are not impaired by technical complexity.Updates in surgery · 2019Article
- Laparoscopic vs Open Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases.JAMA surgery · 2018Article
- Laparoscopic liver resection: the current status and the future.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2018Review
- A Sling Technique for Laparoscopic Resection of Segment Seven of the Liver.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic liver surgery has gained widespread acceptance and nowadays it is suggested even for malignant disease. Although the benefits on short-term outcomes have been proven, data on oncological safety are still lacking. The aim of this study is to assess oncologic results after ultrasound-guided laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or open liver resection (OLR) for colorectal metastases. 37 consecutive patients undergoing LLR between 01/2004 and 03/2014 were matched at a ratio of 1:1 with 37 OLR. Matching criteria were male sex, number and diameter of liver metastases, segment location, synchronous presentation, site and stage of primary tumor, positive lymph nodes of the primary, and concomitant extrahepatic disease. Demographic characteristics were similar among groups. Parenchymal transection time was longer in the LLR group (68 ± 38.2 SD vs 40 ± 33.7 SD, p = 0.01). Mortality was nil in LLR and OLR. Overall morbidity was significantly lower in LLR (13.5 vs 37.8%, p = 0.02), although severe complications were similar among the two groups. Patients undergoing LLR were discharged earlier (5 ± 2.3 SD vs 8 ± 6.6 SD days, p < 0.001). The median margin width was 5 (0-40) mm in LLR vs 8 (0-25) mm in OLR, p = 0.897. R1 resection was recorded in four LLR and three OLR (p = 1). Overall recurrences were similar among groups. Eight patients with hepatic or extrahepatic recurrence among LLR underwent surgery vs four of OLR (p = 0.03). After a median follow-up of 35.7 months in LLR and 47.9 months in OLR, 3-year overall survival was 91.8% LLR and 74.8% OLR (p = 0.14). 3-year disease-free survival was 69.1% LLR and 65.9% OLR (p = 0.53). Multivariate analysis showed that postoperative complications [HR 3.42 (95% CI 1.32-8.89)] and multiple metastases [HR 3.84 (95% CI 1.34-10.83)] were independent predictors of worse survival (p = 0.01). Ultrasound-LLR for colorectal hepatic metastases is safe, ensuring oncologic outcomes comparable to OLR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26220046What 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.