Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30649611›Full record

ReviewSurgery today2019

Developments and perspectives of laparoscopic liver resection in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Zenichi Morise

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Surgery today, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

1 author.

Zenichi MoriseDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo Kutsukakecho, Toyoake, Aichi, Japan. zmorise@fujita-hu.ac.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) was introduced in the early 1990s, initially for partial resection of the anterolateral segments, from where it has expanded in a stepwise fashion. Movement restriction makes bleeding control demanding. Managing pneumoperitoneum pressure with inflow control can inhibit venous bleeding and create a dry surgical field for easier hemostasis. Since the lack of overview leads to disorientation, simulation and navigation with imaging studies have become important. Improved direct access to the liver inside the rib cage can be obtained in LLR, reducing destruction of the associated structures and decreasing the risk of refractory ascites and liver failure, especially in patients with a cirrhotic liver. Although LLR can be performed as bridging therapy to transplantation for severe cirrhosis, its impact on expanding the indications of liver resection (LR) and the consequent survival benefits must be evaluated. For repeat LR, LLR is advantageous by producing fewer adhesions and reducing the need for adhesiolysis. The laparoscopic approach facilitates better access in a small operative field between adhesions. Further evaluations are needed for repeat anatomical resection, since alterations of the anatomy and surrounding scars and adhesions of major vessels have a larger impact.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularHepatectomyHumansLaparoscopyLiverLiver CirrhosisLiver FailureLiver NeoplasmsPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationTreatment OutcomeApproachConceptHepatocellular carcinomaHistoryLaparoscopic liver resectionLiver cancerLiver cirrhosisPostureRepeat resectionSimulationTechnique

Identifiers

PMID30649611

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.