SynthesisMedicine2018
Laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy was expected to be the standard for the treatment of left hepatic lobe lesions: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Level 2a evidence comparing robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy: a meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Safety and feasibility for laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection: a meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021Pooled it
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comparative analysis of the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic and open approaches for right anterior sectionectomy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic anatomical left hemihepatectomy along the middle hepatic vein from the head side approach.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- An international multicentre propensity score matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Achievement of textbook outcomes and comparisons with benchmark values after laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- Current evidence on laparoscopic vs. open resection for gastric stromal tumours.Oncology letters · 2021Review
- Long-term abdominal wall benefits of the laparoscopic approach in liver left lateral sectionectomy: a multicenter comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Comparative analysis of the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Article
- Safety and feasibility of laparoscopy technology in right hemihepatectomy.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy (LLLHS) has been widely accepted because of the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. We aimed to assess the benefits and drawbacks of left lateral sectionectomy (of segments II/III) compared with laparoscopic and open approaches.
methodsRelevant literature was searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Ovid Medline databases. We calculated odds ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for fixed-effects and random-effects models.
resultsThe meta-analysis included 14 trials involving 685 patients. There were no statistically significant differences between LLLHS and open LLHS (OLLHS) regarding analgesia (P = .31), pedicle clamping (P = .70), operative time (P = .54), hospital expenses (P = .64), postoperative alanine aminotransferase levels (P = .57), resection margin (95% CI -3.02-4.28; P = .73), or tumor recurrence (95% CI 0.51-3.05; P = .62). However, the LLLHS group showed significantly better results regarding blood transfusion (95% CI 0.14-0.73; P = .007), blood loss (95% CI -140.95 to -67.23; P <.001), total morbidity (95% CI 0.24-0.56; P <.01), and hospital stay (95% CI -3.84 to -2.31; P <.001) than the OLLHS group.
conclusionLLLHS has an advantage in the hospital stay, blood loss, and total morbidity. It is an ideal method for LLHS surgery.
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.