Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27500142›Full record

ReviewHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2016

Short and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic compared to open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases.

Julie Hallet, Kaitlyn Beyfuss, Riccardo Memeo, Paul J Karanicolas, Jacques Marescaux, Patrick Pessaux

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Julie HalletInstitut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) de Strasbourg, Institute for Minimally Hybrid Invasive Image-Guided Surgery, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France;; Institut de Recherche sur les Cancers de l'Appareil Digestif (IRCAD), Strasbourg, France;; Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre-Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;; Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;
Kaitlyn BeyfussDivision of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre-Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ;
Riccardo MemeoInstitut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) de Strasbourg, Institute for Minimally Hybrid Invasive Image-Guided Surgery, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France;; Institut de Recherche sur les Cancers de l'Appareil Digestif (IRCAD), Strasbourg, France;; General Digestive and Endocrine Surgery Service, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France.
Paul J KaranicolasDivision of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre-Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;; Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;
Jacques MarescauxInstitut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) de Strasbourg, Institute for Minimally Hybrid Invasive Image-Guided Surgery, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France;; Institut de Recherche sur les Cancers de l'Appareil Digestif (IRCAD), Strasbourg, France;
Patrick PessauxInstitut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) de Strasbourg, Institute for Minimally Hybrid Invasive Image-Guided Surgery, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France;; Institut de Recherche sur les Cancers de l'Appareil Digestif (IRCAD), Strasbourg, France;; General Digestive and Endocrine Surgery Service, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimally invasive surgery (MIS) is now established as standard of care for a variety of gastrointestinal procedures for benign and malignant indications. However, due to concerns regarding superiority to open liver resection (OLR), the uptake of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been slow. Data on long-term outcomes of LLR for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remain limited. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of short and long-term outcomes of LLR compared to OLR for CRLM.

methodsFive electronic databases were systematically searched for studies comparing LLR and OLR for CRLM and reporting on survival outcomes. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes were operative time, estimated blood loss, post-operative major morbidity, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and resection margins.

resultsEight non-randomized studies (NRS) were included (n=2,017 total patients). Six were matched cohort studies. LLR reduced estimated blood loss [mean difference: -108.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), -214.0 to -3.7) and major morbidity [relative risk (RR): 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.83], but not mortality. No difference was observed in operative time, LOS, resection margins, R0 resections, and recurrence. Survival data could not be pooled. No studies reported inferior survival with LLR. OS varied from 36% to 60% for LLR and 37% to 65% for OLR. RFS ranged from 14% to 30% for LLR and 22% to 38% for OLR. According to the grade classification, the strength of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. The use of parenchymal sparing resections with LLR and OLR could not be assessed.

conclusionsBased on limited retrospective evidence, LLR offers reduced morbidity and blood loss compared to OLR for CRLM. Comparable oncologic outcomes can be achieved. Although LLR cannot be considered as standard of care for CRLM, it is beneficial for well-selected patients and lesions. Therefore, LLR should be part of the liver surgeon's armamentarium.

Indexed as

Colorectallaparoscopylivermetastasessurgery

Identifiers

PMID27500142
PMCPMC4960414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.