SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2019
Meta-analysis of short- and long-term outcomes after pure laparoscopic versus open liver surgery in hepatocellular carcinoma patients.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 7 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for difficult posterosuperior segments: a systematic review with a meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Total hepatic inflow occlusion vs. hemihepatic inflow occlusion for laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Laparoscopic liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Is It Just a Matter of Surgical Extension to Achieve the Cure of Hepatocarcinoma? A Meta-Analysis of Propensity-Matched and Randomized Studies for Anatomic Versus Parenchyma-Sparing Liver Resection.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021Pooled it
- Outcomes of laparoscopic repeat liver resection for recurrent liver cancer: A system review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus open sectionectomy and bisectionectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis of short- and long-term outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Validation of the Institute Mutualiste Montsouris system for the stratification of laparoscopic liver resections: an international multicenter study.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
- Comparison of the accuracy of predictive models in early detection of clinically relevant posthepatectomy liver failure.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic Versus Open Caudate Lobe Resection: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treatment strategies: Are transarterial approaches leading the way?World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for huge hepatocellular carcinoma (≥ than 10 cm): a retrospective analysis from a high-volume referral center.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Sorafenib plus memory-like natural killer cell immunochemotherapy boosts treatment response in liver cancer.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Evolving trends in treatment patterns for hepatocellular carcinoma in Korea from 2008 to 2022: a nationwide population-based study.Journal of liver cancer · 2024Article
- Advances in minimally invasive liver surgery.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2024Review
- Hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence: Predictors and management.Liver research (Beijing, China) · 2023Review
- Review
- Management of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: challenges and strategies for optimal outcomes.Journal of liver cancer · 2023Article
- Breakthroughs in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Therapies.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe advantages of laparoscopy are widely known. Nevertheless, its legitimacy in liver surgery is often questioned because of the uncertain value associated with minimally invasive methods. Our main goal was to compare the outcomes of pure laparoscopic (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
methodsWe searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases to find eligible studies. The most recent search was performed on December 1, 2017. Studies were regarded as suitable if they reported morbidity in patients undergoing LLR versus OLR. Extracted data were pooled and subsequently used in a meta-analysis with a random-effects model. Clinical applicability of results was evaluated using predictive intervals. Review was reported following the PRISMA guidelines.
resultsFrom 2085 articles, forty-three studies (N = 5100 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Our findings showed that LLR had lower overall morbidity than OLR (15.59% vs. 29.88%, p < 0.001). Moreover, major morbidity was reduced in the LLR group (3.78% vs. 8.69%, p < 0.001). There were no differences between groups in terms of mortality (1.58% vs. 2.96%, p = 0.05) and both 3- and 5-year overall survival (68.97% vs. 68.12%, p = 0.41) and disease-free survival (46.57% vs. 44.84%, p = 0.46).
conclusionsThe meta-analysis showed that LLR is beneficial in terms of overall morbidity and non-procedure-specific complications. That being said, these results are based on non-randomized trials. For these reasons, we are calling for randomization in upcoming studies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018084576.
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.