Observational studyBJS open2020
Percutaneous radiofrequency-assisted liver partition versus portal vein embolization before hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.
Observational study in BJS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Generic surgical process model for minimally invasive liver treatment methods.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- CARVEDILOL AS PRIMARY PROPHYLAXIS FOR GASTRIC VARICEAL BLEEDING IN PORTAL HYPERTENSION MODEL IN RATS.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous radiofrequency-assisted liver partition with portal vein embolization in staged liver resection (PRALPPS) represents an alternative to portal vein embolization (PVE) followed by major liver resection in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.
methodsThis was an observational case-control study. Both procedures were applied in patients with a future liver remnant (FLR) volume of less than 40 per cent. The main end points of the study were short-term morbidity and mortality for the two procedures. The study also compared the efficacy of the preresection phases estimated by kinetic growth rate (KGR), time interval and degree of hypertrophy of the FLR.
resultsThe first phase (preresection) was completed in 11 and 18 patients, and the second phase (resection) in nine and 14 patients, in the PRALPPS and PVE groups respectively. Major morbidity after the first stage did not differ between the groups. There were no differences in blood loss, severe morbidity or liver failure rate after the second stage, with no deaths. The mean KGR of the FLR after the preresection phase for PRALPPS was 3·8 (0·6-9·8) per cent/day, and that after PVE was 1·8 (0-6·7) per cent/day (P = 0·037). The mean time interval for FLR hypertrophy in the PRALPPS and PVE groups was 15 (6-29) and 20 (8-35) days respectively (P = 0·039).
conclusionShort-term outcomes were similar for PRALPPS and PVE in terms of safety. Remnant hypertrophy was achieved more rapidly by PRALPPS.
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.