ReviewWorld journal of hepatology2019
Outcomes of staged hepatectomies for liver malignancy.
Review in World journal of hepatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surgical outcomes of simultaneous vs. staged resection in colorectal cancer with liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- The Role of Liver Transplantation in the Treatment of Liver Metastases from Neuroendocrine Tumors.Current treatment options in oncology · 2023Review
- How should liver hypertrophy be stimulated? A comparison of upfront associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) and portal vein embolization (PVE) with rescue possibility.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2021Article
- Currently available treatment options for neuroendocrine liver metastases.Annals of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Article
- Pros and Cons of Portal Vein Embolization With Hematopoietic Stem Cells Application in Colorectal Liver Metastases Surgery.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
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
Liver malignancies are the fifth most common cause of death worldwide. Surgical intervention with curative intent is the treatment of choice for liver tumors as it provides long-term survival. However, only 20% of patients with metastatic liver lesions can be managed by curative liver resection. In most of the cases, hepatectomy is not feasible because of insufficient future liver remnant (FLR). Two-stage hepatectomy is advocated to achieve liver resection in a patient who is considered to not be a candidate for resection. Procedures of staged hepatectomy include conventional two-stage hepatectomy, portal vein embolization, and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for a staged hepatectomy. Technical success is high for each of these procedures but variable between them. All the procedures have been reported as being effective in achieving a satisfactory FLR and completing the second-stage resection. Moreover, the overall survival and disease-free survival rates have improved significantly for patients who were otherwise considered nonresectable; yet, an increase in the morbidity and mortality rates has been observed. We suggest that this type of procedure should be carried out in high-flow centers and through a multidisciplinary approach. An experienced surgeon is key to the success of those interventions.
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.