Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29344784›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018

The feasibility and efficacy of pure laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy.

Yusuke Ome, Kazuki Hashida, Mitsuru Yokota, Yoshio Nagahisa, Kazushige Yamaguchi, Michio Okabe, Kazuyuki Kawamoto

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Advantages of the Laparoscopic Approach for the Initial Operation in Patients who Underwent Repeat Hepatectomy.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. LaparoscopicWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022
    Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Yusuke OmeDepartment of Surgery, Kurashiki Central Hospital, 1-1-1 Miwa, Kurashiki, Okayama, 710-8602, Japan. yusuke_omen@yahoo.co.jp.
Kazuki HashidaDepartment of Surgery, Kurashiki Central Hospital, 1-1-1 Miwa, Kurashiki, Okayama, 710-8602, Japan.
Mitsuru YokotaDepartment of Surgery, Kurashiki Central Hospital, 1-1-1 Miwa, Kurashiki, Okayama, 710-8602, Japan.
Yoshio NagahisaDepartment of Surgery, Kurashiki Central Hospital, 1-1-1 Miwa, Kurashiki, Okayama, 710-8602, Japan.
Kazushige YamaguchiDepartment of Surgery, Kurashiki Central Hospital, 1-1-1 Miwa, Kurashiki, Okayama, 710-8602, Japan.
Michio OkabeDepartment of Surgery, Kurashiki Central Hospital, 1-1-1 Miwa, Kurashiki, Okayama, 710-8602, Japan.
Kazuyuki KawamotoDepartment of Surgery, Kurashiki Central Hospital, 1-1-1 Miwa, Kurashiki, Okayama, 710-8602, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRepeat hepatectomy is often required for hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic tumors. However, this procedure is technically challenging, so laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) has not been widely adopted. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of LRH compared with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) and laparoscopic primary hepatectomy (LPH).

methodsWe introduced laparoscopic hepatectomy at our institution in April 2014. We performed 127 LPH (LPH group) and 33 LRH procedures (LRH group) from April 2014 to April 2017; 37 patients underwent ORH from January 2010 to April 2017 (ORH group). This study retrospectively compared the patient characteristics and short-term outcomes of the LRH and ORH groups as well as the LRH and LPH groups.

resultsThere were no conversions to open surgery in the LRH group. In comparing the LRH and ORH groups, there were no significant differences in patient characteristics except for the type of approach to the previous hepatectomy (p = 0.004) and indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min (median 12.5 vs. 8.75%, p = 0.026). The LRH group had less blood loss (median 30 mL vs. 652 mL; p < 0.001), less intraoperative transfusion (6.1 vs. 32.4%; p = 0.006), and shorter postoperative hospital stays (median 6.5 days vs. 9.0 days; p < 0.001). There were no differences with regard to operation time, severe postoperative complications, and mortality. In comparing the LRH and LPH groups, there was a significant difference only in past history of abdominal surgery (100 vs. 61.4%; p < 0.001). In the short-term outcomes, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LRH group (median 6.5 days vs. 7 days; p = 0.033), and the other results were comparable between the two groups.

conclusionsLRH is feasible and useful for repeat hepatectomy, achieving good short-term outcomes.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, HepatocellularFeasibility StudiesFemaleHepatectomyHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsReoperationHepatocellular carcinomaLaparoscopic hepatectomyLaparoscopic liver resectionMetastatic tumorRehepatectomyRepeat hepatectomy

Identifiers

PMID29344784

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.