ArticleWorld journal of surgery2016
Central Hepatectomy versus Extended Hepatectomy for Malignant Tumors: A Propensity Score Analysis of Postoperative Complications.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Hepatectomy of Central-Located Liver Lesions: A Multicenter, Propensity Score-Matched, Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic vs. open liver resection for hepatocellular adenoma: a multicenter propensity score adjustment analysis by the AFC-HCA-2013 study group.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe specific definition of central hepatectomy (CH) (i.e., resection of segments 4-5-8 ± 1) is not uniformly used, resulting in conflicting comparisons with the more commonly performed extended hepatectomy (EH). The study aimed to compare, using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, the incidence of postoperative complications between CH and EH for centrally located liver tumors (CLLT).
methodsAll consecutive CH and EH procedures for CLLT performed from 1980 to 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Independent predictors of postoperative complications were identified. CH was compared to EH after PSM.
resultsThe study population consisted of 373 patients, 44 (11.8 %) of whom underwent CH and 329 (88.2 %) of whom underwent EH. Before PSM, the overall 90-day mortality was 7.2 % (27 patients) without a group difference (2 (4.5 %) for CH vs. 25 (7.6 %) for EH, p = 0.756). The CH and EH groups had similar postoperative morbidity rates (43.2 vs. 55.3 %; p = 0.108). Blood transfusion was the only independent predictor of postoperative complications (Hazard Ratio: 1.73; 95 % confidence interval: 1.11-2.68; p = 0.014). After PSM, 43 CH patients were matched with 43 EH patients. No group difference was observed for the postoperative mortality, morbidity, or duration of hospital stay. A higher number of EH patients (30.2 vs. 9.3 %, p = 0.028) presented with more than one postoperative complication.
conclusionsCH and EH yield similar mortality and morbidity. For CLLT, CH may be an attractive procedure with the advantage of sparing the liver parenchyma compared with EH.
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.