ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Analysis of laparoscopic laser liver resection in standardized porcine model.
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of water cooling on laser-induced thermal damage in rat hepatectomy.Lasers in surgery and medicine · 2022Article
- Development of human hepatocellular carcinoma in X-linked severe combined immunodeficient pigs: An orthotopic xenograft model.PloS one · 2021Article
- Preliminary Evaluation of Thulium Doped Fiber Laser in Pig Model of Liver Surgery.BioMed research international · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHepatocellular carcinoma is a highly prevalent and lethal primary neoplasia of the liver and metastases of other malignancies affect most frequently the liver. Minimally invasive surgical approach for liver resections is advancing. Dissection of liver parenchyma by laparoscopic technique remains challenging and new technologies are in need. Therefore, we asked whether it is feasible to dissect liver tissue comparably in terms of speed and hemostasis with a non-contact 1.9-µm cw-laser device and whether there are differences in the postoperative healing process compared to a gold standard device (ultrasound aspirator) in an experimental model.
methodsLaparoscopic laser and ultrasound aspirator standardized partial liver resections were performed in seven pigs. Resection time, hemostasis time, and blood loss were evaluated. After at least 10 days, representative specimen of the resection areas was collected via re-laparoscopy and biopsy and side effects like hematoma, abscess, or bilioma were noted. Histologically, coagulation necrosis margin, granulation tissue zone, tissue fibrosis, and giant cell count were analyzed.
resultsLaparoscopic laser liver resection was three times faster compared to the laparoscopic ultrasound aspirator. Blood loss was equal in both groups. No side effects like hematoma or bilioma occurred. Histologically, specimen showed the same expansion of coagulation necrosis zone and granulation tissue. Fibrotic scar could be determined in three cases in both groups, respectively. However, giant cell count was significant higher in the laser resection group.
conclusionsThe 1.9-µm cw-laser device enables a safe and fast liver resection in an experimental pig model compared to a gold standard (ultrasound aspirator) laparoscopic liver resection method. Wound healing is not interfered by laser liver resection.
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.