ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Feasibility and efficacy of repeat laparoscopic liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for recurrent liver cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Surgical site wound infection and pain after laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy versus conventional open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Sorafenib in the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and microvascular infiltration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Pooled it
- Management and outcomes of patients with liver cancer in China and the United States.Chinese medical journal · 2026Article
- Treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: The current standards and future perspectives.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Review
- Therapeutic Approach to Post-Transplant Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Certainties and Open Issues.Cancers · 2023Review
- Appropriate indications for laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Recent advances in recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma therapy.World journal of hepatology · 2023Review
- Challenging Scenarios and Debated Indications for Laparoscopic Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Cancers · 2023Review
- Efficacy of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy compared with open repeat hepatectomy: a single-center, propensity score matching study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- LaparoscopicWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in hepatectomy patients: inverse probability of treatment weighting.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- Article
- Is minimally invasive liver surgery a reasonable option in recurrent HCC? A snapshot from the I Go MILS registry.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- The role of laparoscopic surgery in the surgical management of recurrent liver malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Perioperative and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective study comparing open hepatectomy.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic vs. Open Repeat Hepatectomy for Recurrent Liver Tumors: A Propensity Score-Matched Study and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Minimally invasive surgery of malignancies: time to argue the fundamental reasons for this emerging technique.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRepeat hepatectomy is an acceptable treatment for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, repeat laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has not been widely adopted due to its technical difficulty. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and efficacy of repeat LLR compared with repeat open liver resection (OLR) for recurrent HCC.
methodsWe performed 42 repeat OLR and 30 repeat LLR for cases of recurrent HCC between January 2007 and March 2018. This study retrospectively compared the patients' clinicopathological characteristics and operative and short-term outcomes including surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and postoperative complications between the two groups.
resultsThere were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups except in terms of Child-Pugh grade. The repeat LLR group had lower median intraoperative blood loss (100 mL vs. 435 mL; P = 0.001) and shorter median postoperative hospital stay (10 days vs. 14.5 days; P = 0.002). The other results including postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups. Further, comparison of two subpopulations of the repeat LLR group stratified by previous hepatectomy type (open or laparoscopic) or tumor location (segments 7 and 8 or other) revealed no significant differences in the postoperative clinical characteristics between them, although the morbidity rate tended to be higher in patients who underwent open hepatectomy for primary HCC than in patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy.
conclusionsRepeat LLR for recurrent HCC is feasible and useful with good short-term outcomes although an appropriate patient selection seems to be necessary.
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.