ArticleScientific reports2019
Novel patient risk factors and validation of a difficulty scoring system in laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utility of liver surface-guided encirclement of hepatoduodenal ligament for the Pringle maneuver in minimally invasive repeat liver resection.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- LaparoscopicTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- A precise surgical planning system for hepatectomy coupled with liver tissue in the hepato-portal vein territories.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Lapdoctor: Multicentre Validation of a Scoring System for Preoperative Evaluation of Difficulty of Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic and open approaches for right anterior sectionectomy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The role of artificial intelligence and image processing in the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of liver cancer: a narrative-review.Przeglad gastroenterologiczny · 2024Review
- A feasible and safe approach for repeat laparoscopic liver resection and patient selection based on standardized preoperative prediction of surgical difficulty.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Risk prediction models for difficult cholecystectomy.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022Article
- Article
- Indications of Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic liver resection: indications, limitations, and economic aspects.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The indications for laparoscopic liver resection have expanded; however, the safety and benefits of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) remain unclear. We retrospectively reviewed data from 137 patients who underwent partial hepatectomy or left lateral sectionectomy without thoracotomy. We compared patients' clinical factors using a difficulty scoring system for LRH. We defined factors associated with blood loss volumes in the 75th percentile or above as risk factors for bleeding in open repeat hepatectomy, and determined whether these factors were useful for LRH risk assessment. Open repeat hepatectomy and LRH was performed in 96 and 41 patients, respectively. Four of 41 (9.8%) patients undergoing LRH were converted to laparotomy. Blood loss volume was significantly greater in the intermediate-risk group than in the low-risk group (P = 0.046). Multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of tumours located adjacent and caudal or dorsal to the primary tumour site was an independent risk factor for bleeding in LRH (odds ratio 3.21, 95% confidence interval 1.16-8.88, P = 0.024). Our study validated the usefulness of a difficulty scoring system, identified patient factors that predicted the difficulty of LRH, and presented a novel difficulty scoring system for LRH based on an existing difficulty scoring system.
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.