Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30771211›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2019

Comparison of the Extent Classification and the New Complexity Classification of Hepatectomy for Prediction of Surgical Outcomes: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Xiao-Long Wu, Zhi-Yu Li, Yong Jiang, Xinyu Bi, Hong Zhao, Jian-Jun Zhao, Zhen Huang, Ye-Fan Zhang, Jian-Qiang Cai

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 51% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Xiao-Long WuDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9059-0005
Zhi-Yu LiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yong JiangDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Xinyu BiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Hong ZhaoDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Jian-Jun ZhaoDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Zhen HuangDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Ye-Fan ZhangDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Jian-Qiang CaiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China. caijianqiang188@sina.com.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn predicting the risk for posthepatectomy complications, hepatectomy is traditionally classified into minor or major resection based on the number of resected segments. Recently, a new hepatectomy complexity classification was proposed. This study aimed to compare the value of the traditional and that of the new classification in perioperative outcomes prediction.

methodsDemographics, perioperative laboratory tests, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and follow-up data of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent liver resection were retrospectively analyzed.

resultsA total of 302 patients were included in our study. Multivariable analysis of intraoperative variables showed that the complexity classification could independently predict the occurrence of blood loss > 800 mL, operation time > 4 h, intraoperative transfusion, and the use of Pringle's maneuver (all p < 0.05). For postoperative outcomes, the high-complexity group was independently associated with severe complications, and hepatic-related complications (all p < 0.05); the traditional classification was independently associated only with posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) (p = 0.004).

conclusionsComplexity classification could be used to assess the difficulty of surgery and was independently associated with postoperative complications. The traditional classification did not reflect operation complexity and was associated only with PHLF.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCarcinoma, HepatocellularFemaleHepatectomyHumansIntraoperative ComplicationsLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesClassificationHepatectomyHepatocellular carcinomaPostoperative complicationsSurgical complexity

Identifiers

PMID30771211
OpenAlexW2913214963

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.