ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Minimally invasive liver resection for primary and metastatic liver tumors: influence of age on perioperative complications and mortality.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic versus open liver resection in patients aged at least 80 years: retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.BJS open · 2025Article
- Management and Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Immunotherapy: A Review of Current and Future Options.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2020Review
- Impact of Liver Cirrhosis on Perioperative Outcomes Among Elderly Patients Undergoing Hepatectomy: the Effect of Minimally Invasive Surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Article
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
backgroundAs minimally invasive technique becomes more popular, an increasing number of elderly patients were considered for minimally invasive liver resection (MILR). Limited physiologic reserve remains a major concern, which frequently leads surgeons to recommend nonresectional alternatives. We sought to evaluate complications and outcomes of elderly patients undergoing MILR.
methodsEight hundred and thirty-one patients who underwent MILR were classified into groups A, B, and C based on age [(< 70, n = 629), (70-79, n = 148), (≥ 80, n = 54) years old, respectively].
resultsGender distribution, BMI, and cirrhotic status were comparable among all groups. Groups B and C had higher MELD (p = 0.047) and ASA (p = 0.001) scores. Operative time (170, 157, 152 min; p = 0.64) and estimated blood loss (145, 130, 145 ml; p = 0.95) were statistically equal. Overall postoperative complications were greater in groups B and C (12.9 and 9.3 vs. 6.5%, respectively). Complications in group C were all minor. Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV complications were higher in group B when compared to group A (6.8 vs. 2.7%, p = 0.43). There was no significant difference in cardiopulmonary complications, thromboembolic events, ICU admissions, and transfusion rates seen in groups B and C when compared to group A. Duration of hospital stay was statistically longer in groups B and C (3.6, 3.5 vs. 2.5 days, p = 0.0012). 30- and 90-day mortality rates were comparable among the groups, irrespective of age.
conclusionsIn spite of greater preoperative comorbidities and ASA score, there was no significant increase in postoperative morbidity after minimally invasive liver resection in patients ≥ 70 years of age.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29046959What 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.