ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020
Laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy: a 1:1 matched analysis.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021Pooled it
- A Comparative Study of Laparoscopic and Open Approaches for Right Hemihepatectomy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients: Safety and Short-Term Outcomes.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of blood transfusion rates during liver resection by country.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic liver resection has increased rapidly and procedure has almost extended to all the types of liver resection. Major liver resections, such as hemihepatectomies, were still innovative procedures in the exploration phase and continued cautious introduction of major laparoscopic liver resections was recommended by experts. The study aims to evaluate the safety of laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LH) by the comparing with open hemihepatectomy (OH).
methodsPatients who underwent hemihepatectomy in Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital from January 2012 to December 2017 were reviewed. A 1:1 matched study was performed between LH group and OH group. Patients who fail to be matched were excluded. Perioperative outcomes, complications and cost were compared between LH group and OH group.
resultsOne hundred and thirty-eight exact matches for all matching variables were found between LH patients and OH patients. The length of postoperative hospital stay of LH group was significant shorter than the OH group (P=0.031). Intraoperative blood loss (P=0.005) and transfusion rate (P=0.001) in the LH group were significantly lower than the OH group. There was no mortality in either group. Twenty-six patients in LH group and 31 patients in OH group had complications and all of them recovered uneventfully after immediate treatments. The hospital expense of LH group was significantly higher than OH group (P<0.001).
conclusionsThese results lead us to believe that LH is a safe procedure and it could be performed routinely in experienced laparoscopic centers.
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.