ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2019
[Preconditioning of the liver].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Conditioning and systemic treatment before extensive liver resection].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Endovascular treatment of symptomatic hepatic venous outflow obstruction post major liver resection.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- [Liver metastases of neuroendocrine tumors].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Review
- [Why are too few patients with colorectal liver metastases submitted to resection?]Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Review
- [Diagnostics and management of intra-abdominal Echinococcus manifestation].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2019Review
- [Role of the radiologist in surgery of colorectal liver metastases : What should be removed and what must remain].Der Radiologe · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) still represents a severe complication after major liver resection associated with a high mortality. In addition to an insufficient residual liver volume various factors play an important role in the pathophysiology of PHLF. These include the quality of the parenchyma, liver function, perfusion, i.e. maintenance of adequate inflow and outflow, as well as the condition of the patient and comorbidities. While the liver volume is relatively easy to evaluate using modern imaging techniques, the evaluation of liver function and liver quality require a differentiated approach. Both factors can be influenced by the constitutional status of the patient, medical history and previous treatment and must be given sufficient consideration in the risk evaluation. An adequate perfusion, e.g. portal and arterial circulation and adequate outflow by at least one hepatic vein as well an adequate biliary drainage should be always guaranteed in order to allow regeneration of the residual liver tissue. Only the understanding of all these aspects will support the surgeon in a correct and safe evaluation of the resectability. Additionally, the liver surgeon should be aware of all available perioperative and postoperative options to treat and to prevent PHLF. In this review article the most important questions regarding the risk factors related to PHLF are presented and the potential therapeutic and prophylactic management is described. The main goal is to ensure functional operability of the patient if oncological resectability is possible. In other words: in the case of correct oncological indication, the liver surgeon should be able to resect what is resectable or, alternatively, make resectable what primarily was not resectable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30848292What 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.