ArticleWorld journal of surgery2020
Anatomical Versus Nonanatomical Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastasis.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical outcomes of parenchymal-sparing versus anatomic resection for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Current difficulty scoring systems may underestimate the technical complexity of segment 6 laparoscopic hepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Can We Achieve More with Less? Parenchymal Sparing Surgery Versus Major Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: An Observational Single-Center Study with Propensity Score Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Generic surgical process model for minimally invasive liver treatment methods.Scientific reports · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnatomical resection (AR) for colorectal liver metastasis (CLM) is disputable. We investigated the impact of AR on short-term outcomes and survival in CLM patients.
methodsPatients having hepatectomy with AR or nonanatomical resection (NAR) for CLM were reviewed. Comparison was made between AR and NAR groups. Group comparison was performed again after propensity score matching with ratio 1:1.
resultsAR group (n = 234 vs n = 89 in NAR group) had higher carcinoembryonic antigen level (20 vs 7.8 ng/mL, p ≤ 0.001), more blood loss (0.65 vs 0.2 L, p < 0.001), more transfusions (19.2% vs 3.4%, p = 0.001), longer operation (339.5 vs 180 min, p < 0.001), longer hospital stay (9 vs 6 days, p < 0.001), more tumors (p < 0.001), larger tumors (4 vs 2 cm, p < 0.001), more bilobar involvement (20.9% vs 7.9%, p = 0.006), and comparable survival (overall, p = 0.721; disease-free, p = 0.695). After propensity score matching, each group had 70 patients, with matched tumor number, tumor size, liver function, and tumor marker. AR group had more open resections (85.7% vs 68.6%, p = 0.016), more blood loss (0.556 vs 0.3 L, p = 0.001), more transfusions (17.1% vs 4.3%, p = 0.015), longer operation (310 vs 180 min, p < 0.001), longer hospital stay (8.5 vs 6 days, p = 0.002), comparable overall survival (p = 0.819), and comparable disease-free survival (p = 0.855).
conclusionSimilar disease-free survival and overall survival of CLM patients were seen with the use of AR and NAR. However, AR may entail a more eventful postoperative course. NAR with margin should be considered whenever feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32535643What 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.