ArticleAnnals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery2020
Comparison of liver regeneration in laparoscopic versus open right hemihepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation.
Article in Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and feasibility of pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Modelling the liver's regenerative capacity across different clinical conditions.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2025Article
- Age-related impact on liver regeneration in older donors after living-donor right hepatectomy: a propensity score-matched cohort study.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2025Article
- Impact of pure laparoscopic surgery on bile duct division of living donor left lateral section procurement.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2023Article
- Minimally Invasive Donors Right Hepatectomy versus Open Donors Right Hepatectomy: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
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
BACKGROUNDS/
aimsThis study aims to compare differences between laparoscopic donor right hemihepatectomy (LDRH) and open donor right hemihepatectomy (ODRH) in the quality of the operation, postoperative complications, and liver regeneration measured via volumetry.
methodsThis study included 119 patients who underwent living donor right hemihepatectomy at Samsung Medical Center from January 2016 to December 2017. We compared several aspects of LDRH and ODRH and analyzed the results using the independent t-test, chi-square test and Fisher's exact test.
resultsAmong 119 enrolled patients, 66 patients (55.5%) underwent open surgery, and 53 patients (44.5%) underwent laparoscopic surgery. The mean operation time was significantly shorter for ODRH (290.57±54.04 minutes) than LDRH (312.28±53.5 minutes) (
conclusionsLDRH is safe, and there is no significant difference in hepatic regeneration compared with ODRH. Therefore, LDRH can be applied for living donation of liver.
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.