Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30361747›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2019

Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent HCC: Comparison with Open Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent HCC and Laparoscopic Resection for Primary HCC.

Brian K P Goh, Nicholas Syn, Jin-Yao Teo, Yu-Xin Guo, Ser-Yee Lee, Peng-Chung Cheow, Pierce K H Chow, London L P J Ooi, Alexander Y F Chung, Chung-Yip Chan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Advances in minimally invasive liver surgery.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. LaparoscopicWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Brian K P GohDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Academia, Singapore, 169856, Singapore. bsgkp@hotmail.com.
Nicholas SynYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Jin-Yao TeoDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Academia, Singapore, 169856, Singapore.
Yu-Xin GuoDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Academia, Singapore, 169856, Singapore.
Ser-Yee LeeDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Academia, Singapore, 169856, Singapore.
Peng-Chung CheowDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Academia, Singapore, 169856, Singapore.
Pierce K H ChowDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Academia, Singapore, 169856, Singapore.
London L P J OoiDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Academia, Singapore, 169856, Singapore.
Alexander Y F ChungDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Academia, Singapore, 169856, Singapore.
Chung-Yip ChanDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Academia, Singapore, 169856, Singapore.
Singapore General Hospital · SGNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aims to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC).

methodsTwenty patients underwent LRLR for rHCC between 2015 and 2017. The control groups consisted of 79 open RLR (ORLR) for rHCC and 185 LLR for primary HCC. We undertook propensity score-adjusted analyses (PSA) and 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) for the comparison of LRLR versus ORLR. Comparison of LRLR versus LLR was done using multivariable regression models with adjustment for clinically relevant covariates.

resultsTwenty patients underwent LRLR with three open conversions (15%). Both PSA and 1:1-PSM demonstrated that LRLR was significantly associated with a shorter stay, superior disease-free survival (DFS) but longer operation time compared to ORLR. Comparison between LRLR versus LLR demonstrated that patients undergoing LRLR were significantly older, had smaller tumors, longer operation time and decreased frequency of Pringle's maneuver applied. There was no difference in other key perioperative outcomes.

conclusionThe results of this study demonstrate that in highly selected patients; LRLR for rHCC is feasible and safe. LRLR was associated with a shorter hospitalization but longer operation time compared to ORLR. Moreover, other than a longer operation time, LRLR was associated with similar perioperative outcomes compared to LLR for primary HCC.

Indexed as

AgedCarcinoma, HepatocellularDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHepatectomyHospitalizationHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOperative TimePropensity ScoreRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30361747
OpenAlexW2898166746

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.