ArticleInterventional medicine & applied science2017
Transvaginal extraction of laparoscopic liver resection specimen.
Article in Interventional medicine & applied science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Robotic Full Lobe Hepatectomy With Natural Orifice Extraction: Case Series Describing the Novel Technique of Robotic Major Hepatectomy and Transvaginal Specimen Extraction.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The application of laparoscopic surgery via the vagina has been introduced at the beginning of this millennium. Here, we report a case of transvaginal extraction of a laparoscopic hepatectomy specimen. An exophytic liver mass originated from segment VI in a 24-year-old female was excised with laparoscopic technique using four trocars (0.5-1.2 cm sizes). The specimen (11 × 8.5 cm) was removed transvaginally instead of an abdominal incision. To the best of our knowledge, only six similar cases have been previously reported, with a patient age range of 32-74 years. Our case, due to younger age, had high cosmetic expectations. Specific to this case, we aimed a better aesthetic outcomes and better convalescence period and, we achieved these objectives. We believe that patient selection and experience on natural orifice specimen extraction were the keys to the success of the operation. We shared this technique with a video presentation.
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.