ArticleChinese medical journal2016
Pure Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Malignant Liver Tumor: Anatomic Resection Versus Nonanatomic Resection.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Laparoscopic Parenchymal-Sparing Hepatectomy: the New Maximally Minimal Invasive Surgery of the Liver-a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been considered to be safe and feasible. However, few studies focused on the comparison between the anatomic and nonanatomic LLR. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the perioperative factors and outcomes of the anatomic and nonanatomic LLR, especially the area of liver parenchymal transection and blood loss per unit area.
methodsIn this study, surgical and oncological data of patients underwent pure LLR procedures for malignant liver tumor were prospectively collected. Blood loss per unit area of liver parenchymal transection was measured and considered as an important parameter. All procedures were conducted by a single surgeon.
resultsDuring nearly 5 years, 84 patients with malignant liver tumor received a pure LLR procedure were included. Among them, 34 patients received anatomic LLR and 50 received nonanatomic LLR, respectively. Patients of the two groups were similar in terms of demographic features and tumor characteristics, despite the tumor size was significantly larger in the anatomic LLR group than that in the nonanatomic LLR group (4.77 ± 2.57 vs. 2.87 ± 2.10 cm, P = 0.001). Patients who underwent anatomic resection had longer operation time (364.09 ± 131.22 vs. 252.00 ± 135.21 min, P < 0.001) but less blood loss per unit area (7.85 ± 7.17 vs. 14.17 ± 10.43 ml/cm 2 , P = 0.018). Nonanatomic LLR was associated with more blood loss when the area of parenchymal transection was equal to the anatomic LLR. No mortality occurred during the hospital stay and 30 days after the operation. Moreover, there was no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications. The disease-free and overall survival rates showed no significant differences between the anatomic LLR and nonanatomic LLR groups.
conclusionsBoth anatomic and nonanatomic pure LLR are safe and feasible. Measuring the area of parenchymal transection is a simple and effective method to estimate the outcomes of the liver resection surgery. Blood loss per unit area is an important parameter which is comparable between the anatomic LLR and nonanatomic LLR groups.
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.