ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Comparison of pure laparoscopic versus open left hemihepatectomy by multivariate analysis: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 5 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, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for recurrent liver cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus open in right posterior sectionectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Safety and feasibility for laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection: a meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pure laparoscopic versus open left lateral sectionectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2022Article
- A propensity-matched study of full laparoscopic versus hand-assisted minimal-invasive liver surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Comparative analysis of the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Article
- Surgical and oncological outcomes after laparoscopicTranslational cancer research · 2020Article
- Safety and feasibility of laparoscopy technology in right hemihepatectomy.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Jaundice caused by protrusion of a hepatic cyst into common bile duct that was resolved by choledochoscopic needle-knife electrotomy: a case report.BMC gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Highlights of the Third Expert Forum of Asia-Pacific Laparoscopic Hepatectomy; Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgeons of Asia (ELSA) Visionary Summit 2017.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo compare the outcomes of pure laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH) versus open left hemihepatectomy (OLH) for benign and malignant conditions using multivariate analysis. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll consecutive cases of LLH and OLH between October 2007 and December 2013 in a tertiary referral hospital were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. All surgical procedures were performed by one surgeon. The LLH and OLH groups were compared in terms of patient demographics, preoperative data, clinical perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics in patients with malignancy. Multivariate analysis of the prognostic factors associated with severe complications was then performed.
resultsThe LLH group (n = 62) had a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay than the OLH group (n = 118) (9.53 ± 3.30 vs 14.88 ± 11.36 days, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that the OLH group had >4 times the risk of the LLH group in terms of developing severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) (odds ratio 4.294, 95% confidence intervals 1.165-15.832, p = 0.029). DISCUSSION: LLH was a safe and feasible procedure for selected patients. LLH required shorter hospital stay and resulted in less operative blood loss. Multivariate analysis revealed that LLH was associated with a lower risk of severe complications compared to OLH. The authors suggest that LLH could be a reasonable treatment option for selected patients.
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.