ArticleLiver cancer2017
Short-Term Results of Laparoscopic Radiofrequency Ablation Using a Multipolar System for Localized Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Article in Liver cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic Hepatic Resection Versus Laparoscopic Radiofrequency Ablation for Subcapsular Hepatocellular Carcinomas Smaller Than 3 cm: Analysis of Treatment Outcomes Using Propensity Score Matching.Korean journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Successful treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma by laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation in a patient with hemophilia A.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2020Article
- The successful treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma arising from congenital hepatic fibrosis using radiofrequency ablation under laparoscopy.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2019Article
- A successful treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma with Osler-Rendu-Weber disease using radiofrequency ablation under laparoscopy.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimMultipolar radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is feasible for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for which a large ablative area is planned, and it imposes a light physical burden on patients. Multipolar RFA via the percutaneous approach is performed in the majority of cases, but the efficacy of multipolar RFA with a laparoscopic approach has rarely been studied. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multipolar laparoscopic RFA (LRA) for localized HCC over the short term.
methodsFrom January 2014 to January 2016, 77 consecutive patients with 130 HCCs treated by multipolar LRA were assessed. One to three bipolar needle applicators were inserted under laparoscopic ultrasonography guidance, regardless of tumor location. We intended to achieve parallel insertions and no-touch ablation as much as possible.
resultsThe median size of the main tumor was 22 mm (range, 10-42 mm). The median follow-up time was 13.6 months (range, 3.1-24.8 months). In all cases, a sufficient ablative area was obtained as planned, without thermal injury of adjacent organs. During the follow-up period, all patients were alive with no local tumor progression, while intrahepatic recurrence distant from the primary site occurred in 7 patients. The 2-year local tumor progression-free survival rate and overall cancer-free survival rate were 100 and 81.6%, respectively. There were no procedural major complications caused prolonging the hospitalization, and all patients were discharged without subjective symptoms 4-7 days after LRA.
conclusionsMultipolar LRA was efficacious in the treatment of localized HCCs by safely achieving a good ablative area.
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.